Pictured: Wario, alongside some Super Princess Peach enemy. And he isn't even on Battlefield!
We apologize in advance for how long this proposal is, but we wanted to make sure we covered all our bases here... Y'know, for a disambiguation article. You'll see what we mean.
Stafy, probably, does not need a full article as a character. He does not directly appear in any Mario games as himself. But like, the current state of his "article" is not much better. It currently directly redirects to his given section of the Assist Trophy section, which would be fine enough if that was all there was, right? Stafy has only made a physical appearance in Smash Bros., it's another Smash Bros. thing, pack it in, chumps, we're done! Crisis averted, and we can all go home.
Yeahhh, this guy is weird. Starfish is implied in all but direct statements to be Stafy himself in sunglasses, prancing about in Super Princess Peach in multiple distinct levels, which is, indeed, a Mario game; or at least a game with Mario in it that we give sufficient coverage for. And he's not just some background cameo, either; he makes physical appearances, he's acknowledged by the in-game Bestiary, he's even mentioned in in-game hints telling the player about his secret presence! In fact, there's been a proposal in the past to just outright merge him with a formerly-extant Stafy page. Now, while resurrecting the old page just to merge this article into it feels like a bit too much (especially since that's really just a more roundabout rename at that point), it bugs us quite a bit that this article for a character we know is heavily based on Stafy, and is implied to even be Stafy, is just... an article you wouldn't come across if you had the gull to search "Stafy" directly, and you'd get shoved right to his Assist Trophy section instead.
And then there's Densetsu no Stafy 3. Yes, that's a blue link, and for good cause; one of the levels in that game is a crossover with Wario Land 4. Wario even physically appears in it, complete with his transformation gimmicks, which Stafy must readily exploit to solve puzzles and progress through the level! This is something we cover readily, since we've determined this is a substantial appearance of Wario. It's even got a Staff page. And besides, it's not like we haven't set the precedent before that crossovers like this that are for a full level are fine before this; just look at Rhythm Heaven Megamix or Sonic Lost World. And, again... You wouldn't find this if you just typed "Stafy" and had the gull to hit "search" or press your enter key, without hearing the advice of autocomplete first. It's only marginally less hard to find with autocomplete, to be fair, but it wouldn't shock us if people are flat-out unaware this exists because they did just type "Stafy" and not think twice.
That's two entire articles we have about Stafy, both of which are, indeed, worthy of coverage on our wiki (an entire enemy in a video game for the former, and a substantially important crossover in the latter), that you'd never even know were there if you simply wrote "Stafy". This isn't even getting in to the less substantial stuff, like, say, the Yoshi Theater cameo in Superstar Saga, or the List of references in Nintendo games article's subsection, or even that one SMM1 level, because frankly, 3 is already enough as-is to us.
We re-iterate; we do not think Stafy needs a full article on his own, so please don't treat us like we're saying so, thanks to his lack of direct physical appearance in-game. Starfish comes close, but it's just a little too indirect and wishy-washy for us. However, we do think that making the Stafy article a redirect to Assist Trophy, blatantly ignoring the other two articles, is... a little too extreme, wouldn't you say? And it's not like we can't just append a "see also" to Stafy's section on the Assist Trophy article, or anything. So... What if we just didn't do either of those? That's right, you read the proposal name, we're finally about to say the line. We think Stafy should be a disambiguation article.
What should it disambiguate between? Well, here's our idea:
His appearance as an Assist Trophy up top, as it's his most direct appearance by far. It's what most people probably are thinking of when they search "Stafy" on the Mario Wiki, so it seems only fair.
Starfish, in the middle; being an important, albeit indirect, appearance. (This could maybe be the first one as it's the only cameo he has in a proper Mario game? But it's still fairly obscure, and he's not overtly called Stafy, so it could honestly go either way.)
Densetsu no Stafy 3, a game he appears in that features a prominent Mario (well, Wario) cameo that we have coverage of.
If we decide it's important enough to include for whatever reason, we could maybe mention the Yoshi Theatre or the List of Mario References or the Mario Maker level articles here. Probably only the References one if we include any of these, but it doesn't hurt to ask, right?
Either at the very end or right below the assist trophy, link to his article on the Stafy Wiki, just as a final little courtesy thing.
If, for whatever reason, you disagree with the "just a disambiguation" and feel he needs his own full article after this, that's fine, and we did put that as an option just in case that begins to prevail for whatever reason. However, we'd personally advise against it, because we don't feel like he's gotten quite that appearance that's more involved than brief cameos lasting only a stage/a few stages/an Assist Trophy just yet. But as for us, we feel like we've made our stance fairly clear that we could definitely bear to at least let readers know that there's a little bit more to Stafy than just his assist trophy.
Camwoodstock (talk) - Per that very long-winded proposal about why Stafy needs a little bit more to his article, but not that much. There's a little bit more we could be pointing at than just an Assist Trophy; and while a full article feels excessive, a disambiguation page feels a lot more reasonable, and is readily expandable into a fuller article should the occasion (somehow) ever arise where that's necessary.
Hewer (talk) I'm not entirely sure why this needs a proposal (let alone such a long one) but sure, per proposal (though the disambiguation should probably be called "Starfy" instead of "Stafy" since that's his official English name nowadays, and "Stafy" can be a redirect to it).
Waluigi Time (talk) A problem I have with the current coverage for Starfy and many other crossover characters that have multiple appearances is that the information about them is scattered across the wiki, but nothing helping you to find it. There's a lot here that could be talked about, but searching Starfy just redirects you to the Assist Trophy list which makes no mention of any of it. We've only recently started to address this problem by keeping the other Mario-relevant appearances on the Smash fighter lists. This is a good start but there's a lot more that needs to be done.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) I would be more inclined to make an article for Starfy on account of the Mad Scienstein article, but what really irritates me is that Starfish from Super Princess Peach is never explicitly stated to be Starfy, and could be just another member of Starfy's species, like Starly. Because the rest of Starfy's appearances not in his own series are very minor, I can see a disambiguation page with very brief descriptions of each of his appearances as working better; however, in that case, I'd prefer for the disambiguation to be comprehensive in listing Starfy's appearances in the Mario franchise, followed by Mario elements appearing in The Legendary Starfy series (since the only other case of this is Starfy himself being able to wear a costume based on Super Princess Peach). If anyone's interested, I've made a mockup of what the disambiguation could look like on my sandbox.
Waluigi Time (talk) I would also be perfectly fine with this, considering how much can talked about here even if none of it's coverage-worthy by itself.
SeanWheeler (talk) I don't like disambiguations for a single character. The only reason an individual character should ever have a disambiguation page would be for multiverse counterparts. Disambiguations serving to link to the character on list pages are the problem I have with Smash Wiki's disambiguations. And we're cutting down on Smash content, so it's best not to recreate pages on non-Mario Assist Trophy characters.
Comments
@Hewer: The reason the proposal is so long is, well, we effectively had to cover every apperance Stafy made in Mario-adjacent media, and then explain why we think it's fair enough that there's an article for that, but Stafy himself doesn't really warrant an article. As for the whole Starfy/Stafy thing, that's admittedly force of habit on our part; but now that you've brought it up, yes, we'd probably go with Starfy, as that's the most recent English name for him, with Stafy being a redirect. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 10:30, May 8, 2023 (EDT)
That's... A really good point, actually. Mad Scienstein is unequivocally considered fine enough to have his own article, despite originating from a non-Mario game under a name that got localized vastly different here in English. If nothing else, that's more than a sound reason to us to give Starfy something more than a redirect to Smash and nothing else. Don't know if we're on board for a Starfy article yet, but we can't blame anyone if our treatment of Scienstein sways others. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:11, May 8, 2023 (EDT)
I really don't see how Scienstein is relevant here, seeing as unlike Starfy, any of his individual crossover appearances would have been enough for full article coverage on their own. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:54, May 9, 2023 (EDT)
From what we'd assume; Mad Scienstein debuted in From Whom The Frog Bell Tolls, and later cameo as an enemy in Wario Land 4 before appearing elsewhere as cameos. Starfy debuted in... well, Stafy, and then made a cameo as an enemy in Super Princess Peach and made cameos elsewhere--though notably, a good chunk of those cameos were before Super Princess Peach, not after. Both also have different names in their appearance as an enemy (Arewo Shitain-hakase -> Mad Scienstein, Starfy -> Starfish). ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:10, May 9, 2023 (EDT)
Actually, Sceinstein was an enemy in Wario Land 3, with a slightly alternate design (presumably under mind control, as he's Rudy's main minion in Dr. Mario 64, which uses the same design). In Wario Land 4, Scienstein is a throwable object in the secret rooms, and has a design that harkens back to that of his initial appearance in For Whom the Frog Bell Tolls. Mad Scienstein in Wario Land 3 seems definitely the best comparison with Starfish from Super Princess Peach: an enemy that is implied or outright confirmed to be a character from a more obscure Nintendo game, except with a slightly different design and name (Mad Scienstein's Japanese WL3 name is Mad Shitain, as opposed to the Dr. Arewo Shitain he has in both WL4 and Frog Bell Tolls). rend(talk)(edits) 14:19, May 9, 2023 (EDT)
canceled by proposer
(I made this proposal here and not on the talk page since this doesn't just affect the main Banzai Bill page but also the other species)
You may have noticed Banzai Bills are occasionally getting called "Bomber Bills" on occasion. At first, it seemed like either a strange case of censorship (regarding the LEGO sets) or a translation error (such as the English Mario Portal website). However, with The Super Mario Bros. Movieusing this term now, I am heavily convinced that Bomber Bill is the new name. To explain, let me detail the history of Banzai Bill's renames.
LEGO Mario Sets
In the LEGO Super Mario sets, the Boomer Bill Barrage set includes Banzai Bills for you to add to your sets. As the set's name suggests, they are renamed "Boomer Bills". Why the name changed is unknown, but as just2good mentions in his censorship video, the word "Banzai" is a Japanese war cry. Now this rename isn't the only case of renames as they refer to Parabombs as "Parachute Bob-ombs" which has yet to appear in a mainline game or a feature-length movie. The LEGO set incident wouldn't be the best reason to rename them since it seems like it was just a LEGO thing. LEGO doesn't like to dip its toes into military themes unless it's fantasy (Star Wars), likely being a case of aiming the sets toward a family audience. And then came the English Mario Portal.
English Mario Portal
The Japanese Mario Portal website has the option to view certain elements of the page in English. The English localization on this website is intriguing, mainly because it took names from theMario Encyclopedia, which also plagiarized the Mario Wiki. One of the odd things about it was the Banzai Bill translations. Their names are Bomber Bills. The Bull's-Eye Banzais are Bull's-Eye Bomber Bills. The Cat variation is Cat Bomber Bill. However, Gold Banzai Bill and Mad Banzai Bills are not localized yet.
Now this website isn't perfect; there are some errors and kinks in terms of translations, and at that time, the term Bomber Bill had not appeared. But what was interesting was that it was somewhat a combination of the word "bomb" and "boomer", like the LEGO sets. That is particularly strange, but it wouldn't suggest a rename. Well, that is until now.
The Super Mario Bros. Movie Now this section will contain spoilers. If you have yet to see the movie, I strongly suggest you do. It's a decent flick and does a proper job of adapting the Mario games into a story, and it does lack some of the severe flaws in other Illumination films.
In this movie, Bowser is about to launch a giant Banzai Bill onto Peach's Castle. But here's the riveting thing; Bowser says, "Launch the Bomber Bill and DESTROY THE MUSHROOM KINGDOM!!" Woah, what?! Bowser just used the term "Bomber"! What does that mean? Well, the implications seem to be clear now. What seemed like censorship on LEGO's part or an odd translation goof on the Mario website, we now have a significant, full-length movie telling us it's a Bomber Bill. I didn't know about it until I randomly stumbled upon it on its page.
The goal of this proposal
It's pretty clear what this proposal is about: Moving Banzai Bill to Bomber Bill and making similar, relevant changes to its subspecies. The short story, the Bill has recently been referred to differently in its last few appearances. It could be possible to join Podoboo and Swooper for pointless name changes. I don't know about specific arguments people could have for keeping the old name. However, the one possible side point I could hear is that Banzai Bill is in Super Mario Maker 2, and unlike other Mario enemies, Banzai was in effect for a long time. And that is true, but the recent attempts at not calling this thing a Banzai Bill piqued my interest here.
The reasons are that they have yet to get an English translation. If they appear in future games and have the name Bomber Bills, we still call the cannons Banzai Bill Cannons if they aren't named in-game. If a new name for them comes out (like Bomber Bill Blasters), we call them that in their appearances with Bomber Bills as we did with Paragaloomba.
Proposer: Wikiboy10 (talk) Deadline: May 24, 2023, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: May 18, 2023
Support
Wikiboy10 (talk) Per proposal and The Super Mario Bros. Movie
Oppose
Arend (talk) I dunno, the name "Banzai Bill" has still been used fairly recently (like with Parabomb), and the movie is not 100% one-to-one with the games either. I'd wait until the games use "Bomber Bill" as well.
Swallow (talk) I'd rather wait and see if at least one more game uses this name first, then I'll be more convinced Nintendo have settled on this as the new name.
Hewer (talk) The Super Mario Bros. Movie actually has a few naming oddities like Blue Shell and Blue Mushroom, as well as calling the Tanooki Suit a Raccoon Suit. Lego Super Mario is also a bit of a stretch to use as evidence since it doesn't use Banzai Bill or Bomber Bill. Since we're yet to see this name in a source that doesn't have oddities like this, and the name "Banzai Bill" was still in use recently, I'd rather wait until the name gets used in more sources (preferably an actual game). I'll gladly support if the name ends up consistently getting used, though.
Camwoodstock (talk) - Per all, we'd definitely give it at least one more instance of Bomber Bill over Banzai Bill--preferably in an actual game--before we put it to a vote. Banzai Bill was still in use as recently as Super Mario Maker 2 and Dr. Mario World in 2019, after all. also we still call lava bubbles "podoboos" out of habit
7feetunder (talk) I'm with the "wait for the actual games to start using it" camp.
TheFlameChomp (talk) I kind of expected to see a proposal about this, but "Banzai Bill" has still been used fairly recently in games and I would prefer that it is used in the context of a game before changing it.
Killer Moth (talk) Per all. We should only change it if the games started using the name Bomber Bill instead of Banzai Bill.
Comments
@Seanwheeler He definitely says "Bomber". Nightwicked Bowser 16:21, May 17, 2023 (EDT)
Nah, he said "Banzai." If he said "Bomber," I would have been confused. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:29, May 17, 2023 (EDT)
Oh, goodness, is this gonna be the next Yanny/Laurel? We haven't seen the movie/don't have plans to, so we can't vouch for one side or the other... ;p ~Camwoodstock(talk) 01:04, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
Regardless of what they were called in the movie, as other people said the name change haven't been made into the games yet. Also, LEGO called them Boomer Bills, not Bomber Bills, which leaves the Japanese site translated to English as the last source for "Bomber Bills." This proposal doesn't have any ground to stand on. SeanWheeler (talk) 01:38, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
Oh boy, who would prevail: "Banzai" or "Bomber"? I have not watched the movie for the second time, so I don't know if ever I hear King Koopa utter banzai, or bomber. PnnyCrygr 05:28, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
I've seen the movie in theaters, the English version with Dutch subtitles to be specific. I'm pretty sure Bowser said "Bomber Bill", and I theorize that they were called "Bomber Bill" on the Mario Portal because of the movie. But regardless if he actually said "Bomber" or "Banzai", the movie still has several other inconsistencies that don't match one-to-one with the games (e.g. in the movie, Donkey Kong is Cranky's son, whilst in the games, he's Cranky's grandson). This is true for the names of several things as well, as Hewer stated before. So it doesn't really matter whether or not Bowser did call them "Bomber Bills", as the movie and the Portal aren't sufficient enough to rename the page of a character that's been used fairly recently and quite often. The most important thing is that we need to see the games themselves using said name, too, before we do anything. rend(talk)(edits) 06:20, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
Create articles for Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix songs
create articles that exclusively cover DDR:MM 5-0-0-2-0
My reasoning for this is simple: Our coverage policy is that levels get their own article. As a rhythm game, Mario Mix's songs are its equivalent of levels. Therefore, they should have their own article.
I think these articles would be substantial enough to justify their existence on their own, as well. Each one would have an infobox primarily made to contain information on each difficulty's note count, and the article would cover the song's origin, role in Story Mode, what occurs in the background during the song, and what elements show up in Mush Mode.
The elements in question here are the names of these articles, and whether they should cover all of the original song's Mario-series appearances (similarly to how Mario is Missing! opens up articles for landmarks that then appear in minor roles in Mario Kart Tour). I see multiple philosophies here, each with potential upsides and downsides.
OPTION 1: Consider them all separate songs from their source material, thereby receiving entirely separate articles covering only their Mario Mix appearances. This approach neatly sidesteps all naming issues, and it works great with Moustache, Barrel, and Gorilla, which takes from multiple songs, but it also creates situations like Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.) and Here We Go! being two separate articles. Maybe that makes sense, though, especially with our increasingly split-heavy approach to level articles.
OPTION 2: Consider the Mario Mix songs arrangements of the song they're based on, and give those songs articles covering all their appearances, including their Mario Mix ones with the information outlined above. (Note that Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.), Underwater Theme, Fever, and Underground Theme all already exist.) This works excellently with things like Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros. 2) and Athletic Theme (Super Mario Bros. 3, but it also results in things like Greenhorn Forest (song), having to decide on which Double Dash!! circuit to name Rollercoasting's article after, and Moustache, Barrel, and Gorilla. Most unfortunate here is the classical music - Mario Mix is most of these tracks' only relevance to the series, so it feels odd to have Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and not Underground Mozart, Overture (Carmen) instead of Garden Boogie, and especiallyTritsch-Tratsch Polka instead of Always Smiling (seriously, they barely sound like each other). Maybe it wouldn't be a big deal since the Mario Mix names would all be redirects, but this still doesn't seem ideal.
OPTION 3: They're arrangements again, and we still cover its other appearances, but this time we use the Mario Mix names because those were the names when the songs were most mechanically relevant. The upside of this is that all the naming stuff that was awkward with option 2 disappears. The downside is that we're naming the articles for all these recurring and important songs after what this one obscure GameCube game called them once. This would rename the Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.) to Here We Go!. It doesn't seem like the right move to me.
OPTION 4: Articles still cover all appearances of the song, but this time we name them on a case-by-case basis. With a few exceptions, the classical songs will use their Mario Mix names since that's their only relevance to the series, while Mario songs will use their original titles and be covered in articles that also cover all the other appearances of the song. The exceptions are Moustache, Barrel, and Gorilla, which is a combination of multiple songs from the original Donkey Kong; Ms. Mowz's Song, because the name "Ms. Mowz's Theme" is close but has never been official as far as I can tell; Bowser's Castle (song), which needs the identifier for obvious reasons; and Piroli, which would use its Mario Mix name in absence of having anything better to call it. The disadvantage of this option is its lack of consistency, but it doesn't suffer from any of the awkwardness of the previous two options.
Oh, one more thing: yes, my argument for making Mario Mix song articles does also apply to the Donkey Konga series. I was originally planning on this proposal extending to those games as well, but I'm much less familiar and their situations are slightly different in many places, so I decided to just focus on Mario Mix for now.
Proposer:Ahemtoday (talk) Deadline: May 18, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Option 1: Articles cover only Mario Mix, use Mario Mix names
Ahemtoday (talk) I can easily see the reasoning for this one. While I'd probably prefer option 4, this also seems like it could be the right move.
Hewer (talk) Per proposal and these being the equivalent of level articles.
RHG1951 (talk) After seeing the drafts, I prefer the information be handled this way.
7feetunder (talk) No reason to pretend that articles for what are essentially just random music tracks that just happened to get redone for a dancing game would exist if they didn't appear in said dancing game. As for the issue of creating "redundant" articles, I see no problem here. We should be treating these like level articles, not music articles. The logic behind this proposal is that these are this game's equivalent of levels, not that Toy Dream's background music magically becomes article-worthy because it appeared in this game. It's no more redundant than splitting DKC boss level articles from the bosses when they're pretty much interchangeable.
Arend (talk) Actually yeah, 7feetunder brings up a good point I should've thought about while voting earlier: the articles should be about levels first and music second, not the other way around. Per.
Option 2: Articles cover all appearances, use original names
#Arend (talk) Second choice, see Option 4 reasons.
Option 3: Articles cover all appearances, use Mario Mix names
Option 4: Articles cover all appearances, named on case-by-case basis
Ahemtoday (talk) This is my favored option. Articles like Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.) show that major enough Mario-series songs can warrant articles, and here we have a bunch of songs that are directly mechanically relevant, being the game's equivalent of levels.
Camwoodstock (talk) This works for us. Don't want to avoid having articles for effectively redundant tracks, but having articles for as many tracks as make sense/within reason would definitely help a lot more with coverage, especially since the tracks are fairly distinct from one another (at least, as far as we could tell; admittedly, we're not very familiar with DDR Mario Mix, but what we've seen and what we understand about it and other DDR games checks out).
#Arend (talk) I too feel like this (or Option 2) is the best option too, given that Option 1 might gives us multiple articles of themes we already have an article of, and Option 3 would give single-game song titles of remixes to the original themes that already have more well-known names. Sure, Ahemtoday's draft on Greenhorn Forest with this option isn't the best example, given the long list of appearances of the Greenhorn Forest leitmotif in Wario World, but I feel like that could be rewritten into a regular paragraph as well.
Option 5: Do not create articles
Comments
Personally, I think we should consider an attempt to list the original music for each arrangement more correctly; for instance, this table lists the original music for "Pirate Dance" being the Athletic theme of Super Mario World, yet the beginning is clearly based on the intro for Super Mario World's Ground theme; and with "Step by Step", the original music is listed as "Bonus game / Switch Palace" from Super Mario World: not only parsed with spaces as if they're two different tunes (even though they share the same music), but I believe it's also an arrangement of Vanilla Dome, also from Super Mario World, which the table fails to mention completely. "Step By Step" could also be a slower-paces arrangement of the Athletic theme instead of "Pirate Dance", the intro for "Step by Step" does sound like a mix between that and Vanilla Dome.
I don't know if the current listings were originally from Nintendo themselves or not, but I think some more thorough research may be in order for a couple of tracks. rend(talk)(edits) 19:44, May 11, 2023 (EDT)
For clarification, do options 2-4 create separate pages for the music like the recurring themes in Category:Musical themes or are they included in the Mario Mix level page itself like with Gusty Garden Galaxy § Music? If it's the former, the original proposal for covering recurring themes specifies that a theme needs to appear in at least 8 unique games. - RHG1951 (talk) 11:17, May 12, 2023 (EDT)
What I was envisioning happening was: if one of those options wins, we create (as an example) the article Lots of Toys. This article has sections for both the song's appearance in Mario Party 5 as Toy Dream's theme, and its appearance in Mario Mix as Cabin Fever, which would be a redirect to that section (or simply the name of the article in option 3). I think that's the second thing. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:53, May 12, 2023 (EDT)
I'd personally prefer to see a draft of an article before I throw my hat in the ring. If I do support, I'm definitely picking option 1 - most of the tracks in Mario Mix are neither major recurring themes nor original songs ("songs" meaning they have lyrics, like Phantom of the Bwahpera), so we should be treating these like level articles, not song articles. Plus it's just awkward to be like "yeah here's an article on the music from Toy Dream even though none of the other Mario Party board themes have one; it appeared in some rhythm game so that makes it special". I am completely opposed to making song articles for the Donkey Konga games. There's no storyline or scenario behind the songs in that game, so articles on them would ultimately boil down to lyrics sheets for a bunch of random pop and rock songs. At best they warrant a list, like ones we have for the Mario cartoons. 09:24, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
Gotcha. I made a couple drafts for Starring Wario!: This one for option 1, and this one for option 4 (though it can be easily repurposed for options 2 and 3 with only minor changes). I chose Starring Wario mostly at random, for the record. Ahemtoday (talk) 16:57, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
...y'know, on second thought, maybe I should've chosen a different song. They wouldn't all have big weird lists like that, I swear. (Though maybe that's just a sign I needed to stretch to fill the Wario World section with halfway-worthwhile information...) Ahemtoday (talk) 19:24, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
Split major classic remakes
Do nothing 1-1-6
I was inspired by the Mario Bros. split proposal to make this proposal. Essentially, we have some remakes, like SM64/DS, the SMA series, & SMBDX split. With the Switch/3DS remake proposal, I feel like someone should do a classic remake proposal, whence why I'm doing this.
There are 3 options. Option 1 splits all major remakes. Option 2 only splits major remakes that would be in a strict definition. Option 3 is the "do nothing" option.
SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Of course, if enough people are fine with the inconsistency, this would be fine, too. Tertiary option.
Hewer (talk) This proposal is extremely vague and unclear in what it's trying to achieve and I still don't really see the point of it, so I'll oppose.
Spectrogram (talk) Per Hewer, and the fact that the proposer doesn't seem to know which games would be split as well. Even if the goal of this proposal is to open a door for future splits, that door was never closed in the first place, and it's better to determine what needs to be split on a case-by-case basis.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Spectrogram. This proposal in its current state is in this uncomfortable middle ground between being way too vague and having way too many potential ramifications. What's... What's even meant to be enacted if this passes? What articles are being effected? What does this policy mean?! It was mentioned this was apparently meant to be the prelude to determining potential articles to split in future proposals, but honestly, you need to lead with that, because we don't want to say "yeah, let's do it!" and then it turns out exactly 0 of the given games are remakes we agree should be split up, rendering everything a moot point anyways as we end up with some protocol that has an "exceptions" list that covers every possible application.
Arend (talk) Per all: It is extremely unclear which articles the proposer wants to split, especially regarding Option 2 which would split major remakes that "would be in a strict definition" (and even when clarifying that it would be like how we split modern remakes on a case-by-case basis, it's still rather vague). Clarity is key for a proposal with big ramifications like this one, so the proposer should make sure to provide a list of which articles would be split under Option 1, and a list of which would be split under Option 2; yet, they didn't provide any of these lists. Even when asked, it gets totally ignored in favor of other questions. This makes Spectrogram's theory of the proposer actually having no idea what games should be split very plausible, which, for a proposal like this, is a huge problem. If you don't know what should be split for your proposal to split articles, then why bother making it? Should this proposal be tried by someone else another day, please think of the articles you want to split first, and make sure to list them when you do make the proposal.
What exactly do you mean by "classic remake" here? That's much too vague. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:48, May 12, 2023 (EDT)
What games would fall in the scope of this proposal? Spectrogram (talk) 12:51, May 12, 2023 (EDT)
What "major classic remakes" are we talking about here? Which ones "would be in a strict definition"? Are there "minor remakes" we're excluding here? Ahemtoday (talk) 12:55, May 12, 2023 (EDT)
Whoa! Already, you 3 ask this! Not being rude, of course. Now, to answer Doc's question, "classic remake" is a remake of a classic game, unlike a "modern remake" which is something like Donkey Kong Country Returns 3DS, or Tropical Freeze Switch. To answer Spectrogram's question, games like Super Mario Bros, Donkey Kong, and so on, would fall in the scope of this proposal. Mario Bros is not included due to there already being a passed proposal for it. To answer Ahemtoday's questions, here's my answers. 1. I'm talking about remakes of a game like Super Mario All-Stars' remakes of SMB1, TLL, 2, & 3 that are still in the articles of the OG game. 2. Strict definition would be something akin to the DKC games mentioned earlier, Luigi's Mansion 3DS, & Poochy & Yoshi's Wooly World. 3. Minor remakes would be like splitting Mario Bros. Classic from Mario Bros. Battle, or Super Mario Bros. with its' FDS version. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:57, May 12, 2023 (CST)
I think they were asking for a complete list of what articles would be split with each option. By the way, you should probably remove at least one of your votes, voting for every option is effectively the same as not voting at all. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 20:35, May 12, 2023 (EDT)
@SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) One user cannot support to every option at the same time. They should support to at most, one option. PnnyCrygr 00:01, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
I must say, this is probably the first time I've seen a proposer put their support in all options of their proposal. I don't think it's allowed to vote for every option though, because as Waluigi Time said, it's essentially like not voting at all. If every option is given a vote by the same person, it doesn't make a significant change in the standings. Another thing: I'm really confused at what the difference between options 1 and 2 are. Option 1 is "Split all major remakes", that sounds clear enough, but Option 2 is "Only split major remakes that would be in a strict definition", and reading that, I'm like: "what would does 'in a strict definition' even mean?!" I got to ask, what games are affected with option 2, and which games are not affected? I know Ahemtoday already asked what "in a strict definition" meant and you already answered that, but I don't feel any more enlightened with the three examples you gave him. All I'm certain of is that minor remakes won't be affected by either option. Listing all games that will be or won't be affected by either option (similar to this or this) would help a lot, as Waluigi Time said. rend(talk)(edits) 02:40, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
There is no rule against voting for every option on a proposal with multiple options though Spectrogram (talk) 03:09, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
There's no rule against it because it doesn't really hurt anything, but it's also pointless to do so. You can vote for every option, but you shouldn't because it accomplishes nothing. There's no difference between the current state of the proposal and if the proposer had decided not to vote at all. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 12:14, May 15, 2023 (EDT)
WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!! JEEZ! This is crazy! Let me try to clear more things up. Waluigi Time, PnnyCygr, Doc, & Arend have good points on voting, but I think on that matter Spectrogram sums it up perfectly. On the topic of what falls under 2, I was talking about how we split modern remakes under a case-by-case basis, option 2 would essentially be like that. It's nice to know that you understood option 1! One last thing. PnnyCygr, that at symbol thing made me get Porplemontage vibes. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:39, May 15, 2023 (CST)
So do you have a list of games that would be split if option 2 passes, or is it just meant to pave the way for future proposals? --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 12:14, May 15, 2023 (EDT)
Look, man, we cannot really work here if we don't get any specific games that need to be split off, at least for Option 2. While I appreciate the slight clarity with the case-by-case explanation, that doesn't mean much without examples. Just give us a full list of what articles would be affected for Option 1, and a more trimmed-down list for the articles that would be affected for Option 2. And if you can't provide such lists, then perhaps this proposal a bit undercooked. It's quite vague as it is, so you might need to take some time, think it through, etc. rend(talk)(edits) 17:35, May 15, 2023 (EDT)
If you cannot wait for an admin to veto/cancel it, you can always move your proposal from here to MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive. Make sure you reach the bottom end of the archive page (press the End key), then cut this proposal above and paste into that archive. Hope it help. PnnyCrygr 09:26, May 16, 2023 (EDT)
This is incorrect. "Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals)."Spectrogram (talk) 09:36, May 16, 2023 (EDT)
Oh. sorry about that. I thought proposals can be cancelled within any amount of time (remember my sonic character proposal?). PnnyCrygr 09:42, May 16, 2023 (EDT)
Make changes to MarioWiki's editbox wallpaper
update the existing wallpaper design with new Mario franchise artwork 2-9-0 The editbox is the field where one can type their edits into. But the most overlooked cosmetic aspect of the editbox is its wallpaper thing: Those strings of character artwork located at the bottom half of the editbox. Currently, it features 2000s artwork (Luigi, Mario Sunshine with Yoshi, Princess Peach, Luigi, Mario Sunshine with Yoshi), as somehow the wiki was established in the 2000s.
The editbox's wallpaper pattern as of now looks like this:
If changes were to be made to it, I would elaborate on these three options:
Give new changeable designs to the editbox wallpaper: We could implement new designs to the editbox's wallpaper. This could be changeable in Special:Preferences, under Editing. There could be countless designs: "Mario Kart", "Paper Mario", "Mario Party", "WarioWare", "Donkey Kong Country (game series)", "Wario Land", "Luigi Mansion", "Yoshi's Island", "Yoshi's Wooly/Crafted World", the list goes on and on.
Just update the existing wallpaper design with new Mario franchise artwork: The editbox still looks like it's from the 2000s, so maybe we can just replace the old art with the 2017-present promo arts of Mario characters.
Do nothing: Do not like these changes? Please feel free to state your reasons for choosing this option.
Proposer: PnnyCrygr (talk) Deadline: May 21, 2023, 19:06 EDT
Give new changeable designs to the editbox wallpaper
PnnyCrygr (talk) Per explanations above, as I would like more variety to the edit box wallpaper.
MegaBowser64 (talk) I agree. I suggest implementing new wallpapers based on specific games, while keeping the old theme as a Super Mario Sunshine wallpaper. I don’t really see what’s wrong with it, I mean sure it isn’t from a recent game, but in no way does that mean that we have to eradicate it from the wiki. After all, the Mario franchise is based on nostalgia. Just because it’s from 2002 doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a place on the wiki.
Just update the existing wallpaper design with new Mario franchise artwork
Camwoodstock (talk) - Having renders from mid-2000s games that are as high quality as the mid-2000s internet would allow us to get our hands on on bold, proud display as the default, in the year 2023, feels almost comically out of date, right? Updating this to be more in-line with the site aesthetics we've grown into since implementing this is way overdue. It's not 2005 anymore (citation needed), so like, if we've updated the wiki logo and various other parts of the wiki's graphics and visuals since then, why should the thing you're forced to see whenever you edit an article--the thing we see as we write this vote and constantly revise it--be some exception? We'd like to suggest, as Koopa con Carne indirectly mentioned, the designs mentioned on the Main Page's talkpage for a potential candidate. Anything a bit more recent than renders that can literally become US Citizens in how old they are!
Somethingone (talk) Thank you Camwood for clearing the purpose of this proposal up for me; per Camwood.
Hewer (talk) Per all, I've thought the editing field looks bad literally ever since I first saw it so I've long awaited this change.
Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Updating the renders would be the best call.
Arend (talk) Per Camwoodstock. The current edit box image appears make use of low-quality JPGs of outdated artwork and might have never been updated since its inception on the wiki, so let's focus on just updating that first. While it would be real neat to have different edit box skins with specific themes for the novices which may find CSS code too advanced for them, I'm not sure if the suggested manner of having it in Special:Preferences can be easily arranged, since I don't think admins can customize that. Maybe Porplemontage (talk) could, being the wiki proprietor, but you might have to ask. So let's not get too overambitious and just stick with updating the one edit box style we have.
Dinoshi 64 (talk) While I do find the current design sort of charming with its 2000's-ish style, I do think it should be changed to something better.
#Somethingone (talk) I really don't see how the edit box featuring artwork from the 2000s is a bad thing. Is it because they have been replaced by newer artwork? I don't see why that would be a reason to replace them for OOW cosmetic reasons, such as the background of the edit box. Also, per KCC in the comments regarding customization; if it is really an issue for someone, they can change how it looks on their own end.
There'd have to be more to the proposed themes than just names for us to vote for changeable designs outright, but we're down to update the default if nothing else, because... well, see our statement. Also... Listen. We get it, a user can customize them on their end, so who cares about the default, right? ...But that's not to say that your average user will customize their background, or even if they know how to do that. Being real here, most people would probably just accept they don't know how to do that, and decide to grin and bear it, and slowly tune it out until it all becomes background noise anyways, just another mild eyebrow-raiser to add to the pile, another thing you just have to kind of insist someone will "get used to" whenever it comes up. Like us, we did that. Well, except that last one. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 22:13, May 14, 2023 (EDT)
Come to think of it--should this proposal pass in the favor of option 2 (just update the renders), would we have a second proposal to determine which option we change to based on a select few options (yes, likely these ones, again)? We'd assume the answer is yes, but y'know, we want to make sure all the bases are covered here. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 12:17, May 15, 2023 (EDT)
Maybe we could use this design from Mario Maker 2? I think it fits very well for an editing field! (Maybe you'd need to remove the SMM2 text on it but otherwise it should be fine) Dinoshi 64 Yoshi,Yoshi! 01:44, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
I dunno, I would prefer something more general as opposed to something more game-specific. I'd also prefer the background to be white, instead of yellow: I don't mind colors in the editing field, but I feel like the background shouldn't drastically change the color if the editing field itself. rend(talk)(edits) 06:32, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
I don't think a design being too "game-specific" is enough to disqualify it, and you could just edit the image to be colored white. But, I guess as a second option we could use this one instead, it is less specific after all, and it's easier to edit to white. Dinoshi 64 Yoshi,Yoshi! 06:44, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
In a perfect world, we'd be able to offer multiple options that a purveying editor could select in their account settings, like the first option suggests. Of course, that's a little high-tech at the moment, so it's probably best to not get too far ahead and just settle on something that'd be a very good all-around option; if someone like, say, Porplemontage wants to figure out how to implement that, then we can start mucking about with stuff like offering alternative skins. (Also, one of the renders in the current banner is very explicitly Sunshine, so make of that what you will?) ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:40, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
In the meantime, that background for our proposals space is also tacky as mac-n-cheese pizza. Mama mia. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:21, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
The section option is not good. I wouldn't vote for it unless we have a clear idea what we're replacing it with. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:28, May 20, 2023 (EDT)
@MegaBowser64: Calling the current design a Super Mario Sunshine wallpaper is pretty inaccurate since only one of the artworks is actually pertinent to that game, the Peach artwork being from Mario Party 6 (Peach wore a different outfit in Sunshine) and the Luigi artwork from Super Mario 64 DS (Luigi wasn't even in Sunshine). The current artwork just does a bad job at representing the overall Mario franchise by using a few old and outdated renders, one of which is clearly specific to a particular game due to its inclusion of FLUDD. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:30, May 20, 2023 (EDT)
I shot up a discussion on Talk:Main Page a while back
(Edit: it's been mentioned in a vote) Talk:Main_Page#That_editing_field... because there's no other better place to start the discussion besides maybe a forum thread, but I guess it got overlooked besides a few comments. The link also includes image suggestions. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:16, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
Way back, I did not look at the discuss page of the Homepage. I did not consider it in mind when composing this proposal. But, looks like 2nd option would win. PnnyCrygr 20:57, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
canceled by proposer
The 2001 iteration is the only iteration officially announced by Nintendo. Also, the official artwork is based on this one. They planned to have ten background environments in the game, while the 2003 version had only five backgrounds. There was unused splash screens in 2001 iteration, it had a copyright date. While the 2003 iteration is the stage before changing to a Banjo-Kazooie game, and the copyright at the beginning is missing and no copyright date is displayed.
Also the voice used within in the game is different, the former is same actors as Diddy Kong Racing and Donkey Kong 64, while the latter used completely different one. The music is also different, the former is brand new (unused in a leaked build, but implemented), while latter is same as Banjo-Pilot.
The proposal is moving Diddy Kong Pilot (2001) to simply Diddy Kong Pilot.
Proposer:Windy (talk) Deadline: May 31, 2023, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: May 25, 2023
Support
Oppose
Swallow (talk) In the end, they're both unreleased games that should have equal priority.
SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Agreed. Just because 2001 Diddy Kong Pilot has the Diddy Kong Racing & Donkey Kong 64 voice actors doesn't give it priority over 2003 Diddy Kong Pilot, Diddy Kong Racing Adventure, or Donkey Kong Racing.
Camwoodstock (talk) - What does prioritization even mean in this context, anyways? Aside from moving the article to a "simpler" name, but that feels redundant when having both articles keep their dates and making the dateless one a disambiguation feels a lot easier. There's no reason to "prioritize" one or the other when both incarnations of the game just got nixed anyways; there's no "true" incarnation of this game in the first place. And even if there was one which released over the other, we don't really "prioritize" like this elsewhere on the wiki. See the Donkey Kong games, Mario Bros. games, and most relevant for this, Super Mario 128 and Super Mario 64 2 are just distinct articles, despite the latter also sometimes being called Super Mario 128. That's not to mention that if we were to enact this, what about all the other articles where we don't prioritize?
Hewer (talk) Per all, I really don't see the point of deciding which scrapped Diddy Kong game is more "official" than the other.
Waluigi Time (talk) The only time a subject gets priority over another is if it's significantly more prominent to the point that we can reasonably expect someone searching for the title to be looking for it most of the time. I doubt that's the case here, and most of the points brought up in the proposal are irrelevant to that.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) The 2003 build is also the one that is actually a fully functioning game rather than an alpha crashfest. Why should it be prioritized less?
I think this proposal should be closed. We can't prioritize until it comes out officially. Windy (talk) 10:36, May 25, 2023 (EDT)
Establish a guideline for citing archived web pages
passed 12-0
I've made a previous proposal about this in the past, but it was unnecessarily complicated. To put this as simply as possible, many online web pages are very likely to be taken down at some point, and many already have; a user may come across an online source which is no longer on the live web, and only exists on an online web archive, the largest of which is the Wayback Machine.
To establish consistency when citing pages from these web archives, a guideline should be listed on MarioWiki:Citations, below the template for citing live websites.
This is what I believe is the best style to follow for such citations: cite the original, unmodified link to a page as usual, then include a statement in parentheses that lists the page as being archived, with a link to where the web archive hosts the page, a timestamp, and finally, the web archive which was sourced. Below is a template of such a citation (the link to the archived page would be accessed by the word "Archived"):
Author Name (January 1, 2000). Live page link. Publisher. Retrieved January 1, 2023. (Archived June 1, 2022, 00:00:01 UTC via Web Archive.)
A note should also be added to MarioWiki:Citations that the precise timestamp for a page from the Wayback Machine, the most common web archive source, can be found by examining the date in the URL; for the above example, 20210309100159 can be read as 2021-03-09 10:01:59, and should be formatted as March 9, 2021, 10:01:59 UTC.
To clarify the proposal, this should not be considered a strict rule that must be followed, nor a necessity for every citation of a web page, but simply as a guideline to follow in case a page has already been taken down, or if a link to an archived version of a page is being added to a citation.
I am sick of these “active” links that are really dead or 404 links. This proposal acknowledges said statement of mine. PnnyCrygr 17:53, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
@ThePowerPlayer Did you give this a 2-week deadline? 'Cause that's for talk page proposals only, normal proposals get one week and so this proposal should end today. SmokedChili (talk) 07:51, May 24, 2023 (EDT)
You're very wrong. To quote rule 3, "except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks". Spectrogram (talk) 07:59, May 24, 2023 (EDT)
Right, that exception escaped my notice. SmokedChili (talk) 08:41, May 24, 2023 (EDT)
Something worth noting: In the case of Flipnote Hatena stuff specifically, the Internet Archive will not do, as they're blacklisted from the Wayback Machine. Instead, however, someone made an external archive of Flipnote Hatena flipnotes called the Sudomemo archive. We've used it before on the Yoichi Kotabe article for his Mario 25th Anniversary flipnote, and nobody seems to object to that one; thusly, should we include something about "if trying to link an old Flipnote Studio flipnote, you may also use the Sudomemo archive"? ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:57, May 25, 2023 (EDT)
If it works too well, maybe we could retrieve all the other Mario 25th featured flipnotes thatwere from mario25th,nintendo,com. Including America, Japan, Europe, and Staff Flipnotes afaik. PnnyCrygr 17:46, May 25, 2023 (EDT)
I feel the need to point out that I have heard tell that certain influential corporate entities are currently making efforts to have the web archive taken down for whatever selfish reasons, so I would caution against full reliance on it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:35, May 29, 2023 (EDT)
Can you point to a source for that claim? I don't see any alarming notice on the archive.org site or their blog. Either way, a good measure against complete loss of information is saving it on other digital archives, such as archive.today. What I also did and will continue doing is take screenshots of relevant web pages and upload them onto the wiki outright. -- KOOPACONCARNE 14:52, May 29, 2023 (EDT)
There is a whole moola about Internet Archive.[1][2][3]. Ray Trace(T|C) 10:00, May 31, 2023 (EDT)
Change full names of crossover characters to the more often used shortened versions in article titles
passed 8-3
This proposal is similar to this one about Conker the Squirrel and this one about Professor Elvin Gadd, except this time, the targets are the many Sonic the Hedgehog characters who appear in the Mario & Sonic games. In these games, the characters are almost always referred to by their shortened names (e.g. Sonic and Tails), but for some strange reason, the wiki article titles don't reflect this (e.g. Sonic the Hedgehog and Miles "Tails" Prower). This is also true of Sonic's Super Smash Bros. appearances, which simply call him "Sonic". Speaking of which, I'm lumping Fox McCloud into this proposal too for the same reason: the Smash games always just call him Fox.
Camwoodstock (talk) The only part of this we'd hold contention with has been addressed, and after reviewing the list again, these all make sense to us. Now, admittedly, we didn't go scouring the list of every character article on the wiki, so there might be a few we're missing; but we can definitely address those as the crop up, and these are the vast majority of the ones we can think of anyways.
PnnyCrygr (talk) Per. Also, characters who have name like Jimmy Thang are using their common nicks (Jimmy T instead of Jimmy Thang). We also have Penny instead of Penny Crygor (and Dr. Crygor not Doctor Crygor), so I will whollily and happily support short nicks names for third partiers.
SeanWheeler (talk) There are some crossover characters with shortened names that overlap with Mario subjects. And using the series name to disambiguate just emphasizes how non-Mario they are. If Sonic the Hedgehog is going to be moved to Sonic, then shouldn't Jet the Hawk be Jet (Sonic)? Actually, if there's proof of their full names somewhere in a Mario crossover like in the Super Smash Bros. Brawl trophies, then their page names should remain the same. The Sonic logo in Smash is proof that Sonic is Sonic the Hedgehog from Mario's perspective, so Sonic's name has to stay and every other crossover character whose full name was stated.
Killer Moth (talk) Per Seanwheeler. After reading the comments I personally find this change to be unnecessary. And as Sean points out in the comments, names like Fox are generic and can confuse new editors.
Jet from Mario Tennis should be prioritised over the Sonic character as he is a Mario character. -- KOOPACONCARNE 13:40, May 28, 2023 (EDT)
Seconding this. We should probably make "Jet (MT:PT)" be just "Jet", and "Jet the Hawk" can be "Jet (Sonic the Hedgehog)". We'd be glad to support if that was addressed, but otherwise... Wow, that's a potential bit of Wiki Jank waiting to be discovered 10-odd years from now. ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:54, May 28, 2023 (EDT)
I thought of that, but I wasn't sure what identifier to use for Jet the Hawk since he's made multiple appearances (and for some reason I thought there was already a case of a crossover character with priority over a Mario character, but looking at the articles we have I guess I was remembering wrong). I'll settle for "Jet (Sonic the Hedgehog)" though as it's consistent with Slime (Dragon Quest) (as well as the former Steve (Minecraft) and Roy (Fire Emblem) articles). I've changed the proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:04, May 28, 2023 (EDT)
Don't you think "Shadow (character)" might be confusing due to the existence of Shadow the Dog, a WarioWare character? rend(talk)(edits) 18:57, May 29, 2023 (EDT)
I doubt it, since that article isn't using the title Shadow. If it was then the identifier would need to be more specific, but as it stands, I think Shadow (character) works fine. Compare Leo and Leo Luster, where no identifier for Leo works fine because the other Leo uses a full name. It's not a perfect comparison since in Shadow's case we need an identifier because of the SMRPG enemy but it gets the point across. (Speaking of which, I noticed that Ninja is another crossover character sharing a name with an SMRPG enemy, except they share naming priority. Maybe there's a case to move the current Shadow article to "Shadow (enemy)"?) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:15, May 29, 2023 (EDT)
@SeanWheeler No offence, but did you even read the proposal before opposing? I am suggesting to move Jet the Hawk to Jet (Sonic the Hedgehog). There's precedent for this with articles like Slime (Dragon Quest) and Ring (Sonic the Hedgehog). And there's also precedent for moving full names to shortened versions, like Conker the Squirrel, Professor Elvin Gadd, Princess Rosalina, and the Donkey Kong Country animal friends. I'm not saying that the full names don't exist or that we should remove all mention of them, just that we should move the article titles to the more common names (we aren't about to move Mario to Mario Mario or Bowser to King Bowser Koopa). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:39, May 31, 2023 (EDT)
Realised I misunderstood your comment about Jet, but I still disagree because the franchise is called Sonic the Hedgehog, it's just the character I'm suggesting to move to his more common name in the games he crossed over with Mario in. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:44, May 31, 2023 (EDT)
Slime (Dragon Quest) and Roy (Fire Emblem) had their series title because they were only known by one name. Conker, according to the proposal that moved him barely had any reference to officially being called "Conker the Squirrel" in his own series. Sonic's full name, Sonic the Hedgehog is quite famous as that is the title of his series and he is called Sonic the Hedgehog in just about every media he's in. And while the character select screen in Smash simply calls him Sonic, his trophy is called Sonic the Hedgehog. So really, Sonic should not be moved. And neither should crossover characters with well known full names. "Big (character)" is too generic. "Big the Cat" tells us that the page is about the Sonic character. The crossover page names are fine with their well known names. We don't have to limit them to what Mario would call them. SeanWheeler (talk) 14:36, May 31, 2023 (EDT)
Seeing as we're only covering the characters as they appear in Mario media, I think it makes perfect sense to go with the significantly more commonly used names in said media. It's the same principle as why we can't use quotes or artwork for crossover characters that aren't from their crossover appearances, and why the naming policy says we should ignore name changes of crossover characters unless these changes appear in Mario media. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:46, May 31, 2023 (EDT)
And if these full names have appeared in Mario crossover media and they have the common name as a subject in the main Mario series, it would be better to disambiguate by using the full name heard in the crossover instead of using parentheticals. If we ever get an article about a species of Fox, the Smash character shouldn't be Fox (character) or Fox (Starfox). He should be Fox McCloud, as his last name was confirmed in Smash through his Melee trophy and in Solid Snake's codec conversation. And Sonic is quite commonly known as Sonic the Hedgehog. If a character's full name is not stated in Mario crossovers, sure, I'd support them being called only by what Mario knows them as. But popular characters that have their most well known names said in the crossover should not be moved to generic names. That's why the proposal to move the Koopalings to their first names failed, because Palutena referred to them by their full names in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U. And besides, we might as well move Princess Peach and Princess Daisy to simply Peach and Daisy if we're going to just go by common names. This proposal is pretty much asking us to move the crossover characters to their playable names from Smash and Mario & Sonic. SeanWheeler (talk) 15:33, May 31, 2023 (EDT)
Honestly, I've considered moving Peach and Daisy to their shortened names (Daisy especially since she's rarely ever called "Princess Daisy") and I still wholeheartedly support that Koopalings proposal, but those are separate discussions. "This proposal is pretty much asking us to move the crossover characters to their playable names from Smash and Mario & Sonic" - indeed, that's my exact goal, and I really don't see the issue with it. Shortening the names to be more accurate to what they're usually called doesn't make them "generic names". Once again, I'm not saying the full names don't exist, just that we should use the more common names, which we have precedent for. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, seeing as this argument is starting to go in circles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:16, May 31, 2023 (EDT)
Well, in my opinion, full names (while omitting middlenames) are better titles for wiki pages than just first names, especially on a wiki that has pages on everything that appears in a multimedia franchise including crossover characters. And yeah, calling Fox McCloud simply "Fox" does make the name generic, especially when editors of a Mario Wiki wouldn't immediately get that it's the Star Fox character until they see the infobox picture on his page. And besides, it's better for SEO to use the best known names that aren't just one word. Mario could stay the same because he's the trope-namer for the One Mario Limit and his last name also being Mario was debated for years. Bowser can keep his name because despite there being a Doug Bowser running Nintendo, has anyone actually called him "Bowser Koopa?" Fox McCloud in Super Smash Bros. media has the Melee trophy, Snake's Codec and Palutena's Guidance confirming his name. SeanWheeler (talk) 01:55, June 1, 2023 (EDT)
Lol, this is starting to look more like a colab'd professorial thesis (whatever that is) than the comments section of an unremarkable proposal on a wiki about a series of children's video games, do you see how much this sentence is sticking out? BOWSER... (talk) 16:54, June 1, 2023 (EDT)
Wowy, I guess I'm pretty new around here. BOWSER... (talk) 17:26, June 1, 2023 (EDT)
While I do agree with the proposal in theory, I have a thought: correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't this line of reasoning later be used to remove "Kong" from all of the Kong characters' names (save Charlie Brown Donkey Kong)? LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:35, June 2, 2023 (EDT)
Their names almost always include "Kong" in them, so I seriously doubt it. Nightwicked Bowser 19:09, June 2, 2023 (EDT)
Not necessarily. A lot of spinoff character selects and such abbreviate to first names for all except (usually) Donkey Kong, who is instead DK. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:39, June 3, 2023 (EDT)
Yeah. A lot of people have their first names as their commonly used names. So taking the common name rule too literally like this proposal and the Koopaling proposal would reduce a lot of character pages to one-name articles. That rule about names most commonly used probably should be reworded as names not being too rare. I haven't played any Donkey Kong games, so if the Kongs are reduced to just their first names, they could lose their identity to me, because I know them better as the names from this wiki. So really, we shouldn't be taking the common name rule to be that we call everyone by the short names they are constantly called, and we definitely shouldn't use parentheticals when those characters have a longer name available. Fox has been called Fox McCloud in Mario crossover media as recent as Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. Even his Fighter Spirit was named Fox McCloud. SeanWheeler (talk) 19:38, June 2, 2023 (EDT)
let us be changing the person namings on internet land (Translation: Let's change the titles for these characters' articles soon.) BOWSER... (talk) 16:11, June 4, 2023 (EDT)
Can't Shadow the Hedgehog be moved to Shadow (Sonic the Hedgehog)? We have multiple characters named Shadow. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:07, June 4, 2023 (EDT)
Sounds good to me. I don't really think Sonic characters should get the naming priority on a Mario wiki. BOWSER... (talk) 09:30, June 5, 2023 (EDT)
This proposal is now officially OVAH, can someone wrap it up I don't know how. BOWSER... (talk) 11:43, June 5, 2023 (EDT)
PASSED 8-3, someone take it off plz!!! BOWSER... (talk) 14:02, June 5, 2023 (EDT)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc.
use bullet point lists 5-0-0-0
Truck#Mario Kart Tour Moving cargo trucks appear on GCN Mushroom Bridge. Stationary cargo trucks appear on the road in GCN Mushroom Bridge R, GCN Mushroom Bridge R/T, New York Minute T, New York Minute 4T, and Bangkok Rush; they also appear on the sidelines in Tokyo Blur 3, Tokyo Blur 4, New York Minute 3, New York Minute B, Los Angeles Laps, Los Angeles Laps 3, Bangkok Rush, and Bangkok Rush 2, as well as in these courses' R, T, and R/T variants where applicable.
The number of courses listed in this paragraph was getting so wild that I had to condense it with the "as well as in these courses' variants" statement. Problem is, this sacrifices specificity. The proposal aims to introduce a guideline whereby lists of this ilk are more digestibly integrated in prose writing. To this end, I propose two options, each based on a format already used on some articles; the preferred format will be applied when the amount of courses listed is 7 or higher.
Option 1: Bullet-point lists
The subject's general description for a particular game is followed by a bulleted list of courses in said game, like so:
If a subject displays different traits across one game, such as having different colours or behaviours, and these traits are described on one article as opposed to being split between articles (e.g. Bandits/Coin Bandits in Yoshi's Island), each course in the list is followed in brackets by whatever variations of this enemy appear in the course. In other words, if a subject has traits X, Y, and Z across levels A, B, C, D etc. in a game, then the level list has the following form:
Level A (X variation)
Level B (Y variation)
Level C (X variation, Z variation)
Level D (X variation, Y variation) and so on, and so forth.
Option 2: Courses show up in-line when hovering/tapping a certain phrase
When the seventh course is reached in a list, the courses listed from that point on are being integrated in a piece of hoverable text.
Notice that the phrase "and some of their variants" has a dashed underline. Putting your cursor over it (on desktop) or tapping it (on mobile) reveals these course variants.
If the number of courses slated to be included in hoverable text is too small (e.g. the seventh course is the only one left to mention), previous courses in the list can be integrated in the hoverable text at the editor's discretion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: Neither guideline will apply where a subject's course appearances are described individually, like in the Skewer article.
Somethingone (talk) Not the biggest fan of using hover text for large swaths of important information, especially on mobile. I do agree with reformatting the big sentences though, and I am voting for this potion since it's pretty consistent for what we typically do with information like this.
MegaBowser64 (talk) I don't think it's very necessary to standardize this format, but organization and consistency are nice anyways. I personally like lists, and, as stated above, they don't affect mobile users, so this choice makes sense.
I do not see the point in standardizing it, really Spectrogram (talk) 14:09, May 25, 2023 (EDT)
If you don't see the point, then I suppose you could vote for the "It doesn't matter" option. Or is that not what that's for? rend(talk)(edits) 10:51, May 26, 2023 (EDT)
Why should I? Abstaining is a better option when the proposal doesn't ruin anything if it passes. Spectrogram (talk) 10:58, May 26, 2023 (EDT)
Split the remaining Mario Party and Mario Party 2 mini-game variants from each other
do nothing 1-3-2-4
Building off of a discussion and proposal from the Balloon Burst talk page, I'm proposing we aim to split off the rest of the mini-games shared between Mario Party and Mario Party 2. While many of those games play almost identically between both games, many of them still feature various rule differences. Few examples:
Hot Rope Jump in the first game is a survival mini-game where everyone must jump 20 times (40 in Mini-Game Island). Anyone who hits the rope loses and pays the people who didn't hit the rope money. In Mario Party 2, it becomes a last man standing game.
Crane Game in the first game gives the solo player only one chance to grab something or someone, with the money they earn varying based on who or what they catch. In Mario Party 2, the solo player must grab everyone and is given the option to grab clocks to extend the timer.
Grab Bag in the original has everyone stealing each other's money. In Mario Party 2, it's a battle mini-game where everyone grabs pre-disposed Mushrooms and one lucky target gets a golden one worth three points and the aim is to just have the most mushrooms.
Those are just a few examples. Several other games feature differences too. And while there is the argument that "they still play the same at the core", a few things to counter that are the fact that both Mario Party: The Top 100 and Mario Party Superstars actively acknowledge the different versions of each mini-game, regardless of whether or not they had differing names or not. The Top 100 featured the MP2 version of Handcar Havoc while Superstars featured the MP version. And this extends to games with differing names, such as Hexagon Heat and Desert Dash to Mushroom Mix-Up and Dungeon Dash. And finally, this would be consistent with several other mini-games; the aforementioned ones that share the same basic concept, but have different names to the notable examples of Bowser's Bigger Blast and Beach Volleyball, which appear similar to identical to Bowser's Big Blast and Beach Volley Folly. All that being said, I don't think it's that unreasonable to split the rest of these mini-games into their own articles.
The following is a list of mini-games that would be split if we split all:
As for the naming convention, I simply say we use the game as the identifier (Crane Game (Mario Party) to Crane Game (Mario Party 2)). It may not be how we covered Balloon Burst, mainly because many of the mini-games share the same category. Some could follow similar suits (Crazy Cutters (4-Player) to Crazy Cutters (Battle)), but I feel the titles work best. If anyone has any further thoughts or suggestions, let me know.
Proposer: Tails777 (talk) Deadline: June 9, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Tails777 (talk) Primary choice. These mini-games have as much differences as Balloon Burst does. They may not be category changes, but they still have significant rule changes.
Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal. This makes the most sense to me.
Mari0fan100 (talk) Rules differ for each mini-game, and they can also differ within the same mini-game. But it makes no sense to me to split mini-games with regional game differences. Mario Party: Island Tour and Mario Party 10 have multiple mini-games with regional name differences, but those mini-games aren't worth splitting because the rules are still the same.
Split mini-games with regional name differences
Arend (talk) The Balloon Burst split not only had the rule change, but its Japanese name was also different, so this makes the most sense to me if we gotta split.
Hewer (talk) I feel like the different names show an intention to count them as different minigames, especially games like Hot Bob-omb and Crane Game where the Japanese names seem to imply they're meant to be sequels of sorts to the original games (which is the same split reasoning as Bowser's Bigger Blast).
Split nothing
MegaBowser64 (talk) Technically, these are the same minigames across two different games, so it just seems a bit odd to separate them seeing as there isn't too much to distinguish the different versions. I don't really see why we can't keep them on the same page and list the differences of the minigames anyway. Now, I would suggest improving the clarity and completeness of the existing articles, but separating the appearances altogether just seems a bit unorganized.
PnnyCrygr (talk) Cosmetic changes across each mini game version do not warrant a split-up
Waluigi Time (talk) I'm all for splits if the difference is notable (Balloon Burst) or Nintendo bothers to distinguish a visual change in the English localization (Hexagon Heat etc.) but the differences here aren't very significant. I don't think we'll benefit much from this and it'll just make navigation more confusing.
Arend (talk) Secondary choice; I don't mind it if we kept the minigames merged either, and as Waluigi Time stated, most of the minigames listed only have aesthetic changes.
Comments
So is the idea that this would move Balloon Burst (4-Player) to Balloon Burst (Mario Party) and Balloon Burst (2 vs. 2) to Balloon Burst (Mario Party 2)? I'd support that but I don't think the Balloon Burst proposal is technically old enough to change the names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:35, June 2, 2023 (EDT)
Actually, the idea of moving Balloon Burst's name is not covered here; that would remain unaffected. This is just the idea of splitting minigames from both Mario Party and Mario Party 2 that are still merged together. I guess I should've made a list of those minigames. As for the naming, I was just mentioning it to show I'm aware that it's not following the naming idea I had. But when the time comes that we can change that, I'd openly support that move too. Heck I tried to suggest it on the proposal itself. Tails777 Talk to me!
I'm also noticing a few games that are similar to the point where absolutely nothing changes (Tipsy Tourney, Shy Guy Says, Slot Car Derby etc). If people are opposed to splitting all of them, I can make an option to only split those that feature significant changes. Tails777 Talk to me!
@MegaBowser64 Part of the reason I'm proposing this is because we already have many minigames that are already split, despite being nearly identical. Mushroom Mix-Up and Hexagon Heat feature no gameplay differences between versions, the only reason they're split is because they have different names. And we just recently split Balloon Burst too, which also had the same gameplay focus as in Mario Party, with the only difference being the change in category, going from a 4-Player minigame to a 2-vs-2 minigame. Otherwise, the goal is still to burst the balloon fastest and the controls are identical. And with that minigame, even the name itself was the exact same. Beyond those examples, Desert Dash and Dungeon Dash play the exact same, Tightrope Treachery and Rainbow Run play the exact same, and Mario Bandstand and Toad Bandstand are in the same category as Balloon Burst; play the same, but different category. Tails777 Talk to me!
Face Lift in the first party game features you distorting Bowser's face; the next game has you distorting other characters' faces. This and other examples like this cannot make a minigame version distinguishable from another. PnnyCrygr 21:58, June 2, 2023 (EDT)
Okay, but I listed examples where the rules differ. As I said, Crane Game in Mario Party ends when the solo player catches one thing while in Mario Party 2 it ends when all three players are caught. Bowl Over in Mario Party gives the player only one shot and will take money from anyone who is hit while in Mario Party 2, the solo player is given two shots and has to hit everyone to win. Those are not cosmetic changes. Again, I can alter things to only include mini-games where the rules and aims are altered, but I feel if we do nothing, we may as well merge the two Balloon Burst mini-games back together and merge Hexagon Heat, Rainbow Run and Dungeon Dash together with their Mario Party counterparts. Hexagon Heat is as much of a cosmetic change as Face Lift is. Tails777 Talk to me!
I actually think there should be an option to split the minigames based on their differing Japanese names (which also was a factor on why Balloon Burst was split). That would be the following:
I could add that. While I'm more on the rule side of the split, it would be more consistent with how Balloon Burst was split. Plus, several of those games also have different names in other regions, which I feel helps support it. Tails777 Talk to me!
@Waluigi Time Except Balloon Burst doesn't have any gameplay differences. The category difference doesn't change the fact that the controls to bursting the balloon are the same and the goal of bursting the balloon first is still the same. I don't exactly see how Balloon Burst is a gameplay difference when the core concepts are the same across both games. Again, my points on Crane Game and Bowl Over are that they actually change over the course of two games; requiring the solo player to eliminate all three other players instead of just one. The requirements to end a game I feel are more significant when compared to Balloon Burst. I concede that stuff like Tipsy Tourney or Shy Guy Says would be a bit excessive, but for the examples where the rules do change, I feel that should be at least a bigger focus. Tails777 Talk to me!
I did look at the examples listed, but I don't really find the differences there worth splitting over. You're still doing the same things in the game, just more of it. I put more stock in Balloon Burst switching to a different type of minigame (though I'm not super committed to keeping them split, I can take it or leave it). --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 13:01, June 3, 2023 (EDT)
@Mari0fan100: I'm assuming you misunderstood the intent of the "regional name differences" option so I'll try to clarify. The option isn't meant to split minigames that were in one game with different names in different languages/regions, it's meant to split minigames with different names between games. For example, Hot Bob-omb has a different Japanese name between Mario Party 1 and 2, so if that option passed it would split the MP1 and MP2 versions of the minigame. This doesn't apply to MP10 or Island Tour because none of their minigames were returning from previous games afaik. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:05, June 9, 2023 (EDT)
Prohibit IPs from editing
vetoed by the administrators This is not the sort of thing for normal wiki users to decide and is entirely up to the wiki's proprietor.
This is my first proposal. I am a new user here, and of course I registered an account to be part of the community here. The reason I am making this proposal is because IP addresses are less likely to make constructive edits. That's not to say they never do, but I'm pointing out how edits such as this or this have formatting mistakes. If they're logged in, it would be more easier to keep track of their name and edits and guide them along the way, like I had been taught a few things while making edits here. This minor restriction won't do much harm because making an account only requires a username and password, unlike several other websites that require you to provide an email address and sometimes more.
Proposer: CoolNintendo (talk) Deadline: June 21, 2023, 23:59 GMT
The wiki has decided it proper to respect all games, series, movies, television programs, albums (music) and publications (print: comics, books and magazines) by italicizing all of their titles...
This policy does a good job covering the vast majority of media (i.e. all digital games, audiovisual media, and print media), with the only type of media not covered being physical merchandise. All of this media is listed in Template:Merchandise, which has led me to notice inconsistencies in how the titles of merchandise are italicized. For example:
This proposal aims to fix these problems by standardizing how merchandise is italicized. I've tried to keep the proposal as simple as possible; my apologies if this is unnecessarily complicated.
I want to limit unnecessary voting options, so if one thing comes out of this, it's clear that the titles of physical tabletop games (board games, card games, and others such as Donkey Kong Jenga) should be completely italicized, because they are objectively games just like any digital game, and they should thus fall under existing italicization policy. What's left is to decide how the titles of other merchandise types should be italicized, if at all.
As a clarification, only official merchandise titles should be considered for italicization, i.e. titles that are clearly displayed on the merchandise's packaging, on the item itself, or otherwise from a reliable source, such as the manufacturer's website; a title from a source such as an Amazon or eBay listing is too unreliable, and a unitalicized, general description of the item can be used instead in those cases.
There are three notable features of many Super Mario franchise merchandise:
Names of games and series in the Super Mario franchise, as well as the franchise itself. These should already be italicized per existing policy.
Product names used to title each item in a series, such as the Burger King "Donkey Kong Time Racer" toy. A product name can also be given to standalone items, such as the Mushroom Bank. Because these are almost used simply to describe a product in the same way as an unofficial brief description, I believe these can safely be left unitalicized. I haven't included many options regarding these to keep voting options to a minimum, though please let me know if there is a valid argument against this.
Note that in this context, brand names should not be confused with the names of the companies that manufacture and/or sell the brands, such as First4Figures, Mattel, or Taco Bell; these should be left unitalicized. As an example, Freiberger is a company, Pizzatainment is one of their brands, and Triple Salami Explosion is one of the products sold under that brand.
Because of these features, I see four possible choices for italicization of the titles of non-tabletop-game merchandise:
Completely italicize the entire title, just like the other media already described in MarioWiki:Manual of Style.
Italicize any unique brand names and Super Mario games or series, but do not italicize any other words.
Only italicize the name of a Super Mario game, series, or the franchise if it appears in the title, but do not italicize any brand names or other words.
Do not italicize the title at all.
My personal choice from these options would be to italicize the names of any unique brand names and Super Mario games or series, but leave any other words unitalicized. I believe this would be the best balance between leaving all merchandise titles subject to a lack of standardization and brazenly italicizing merchandise titles where it may be unwarranted, though I can see a valid argument being made for most of the other options.
The option that receives the most votes should be explicitly listed as a guideline on MarioWiki:Manual of Style, under the "Italicizing titles" header. Please bring up any points of confusion or contention in the comments.
Camwoodstock (talk) Works for us, since this definitely is most in line with how we usually format things as-is, and the tabletop games should've been fully italicized from the start.
Fully italicize titles of tabletop games, and italicize only the names of Super Mario games or series otherwise
Koopa con Carne (talk) MLA makes a point to italicise board game titles in as recently as their 9th edition book. The wiki already adopts MLA's style guide for video game titles, so doing the same thing with board games (as well as other types of tabletop games for that matter) seems pretty consistent to me. As for brand names, MLA states they should be formatted without italics, so you'd have Super Mario Trading Card Collection written as such, with "Super Mario" written in italics since the wiki currently does this for media franchise names. Though, there should be another discussion on whether media franchises should be considered works (and thus warranting italicisation) or brands; MLA isn't clear on that distinction, and the most relevant article of theirs I could find only regards book/movie series and trilogies.
Fully italicize titles of only tabletop games, and do not italicize titles of other merchandise
MegaBowser64 (talk) Wikipedia italicizes board and card games and doesn't capitalize other merch. I don't really see the point in italicizing franchise names within the name of another product which could possibly already have some italicization going on.
Do not italicize titles of any merchandise whatsoever
Do not establish any guidelines regarding merchandise titles
Comments
According to Grammarly, titles of board games and card games shouldn't be italicized, but Wikipedia italicizes board game titles. Shouldn't only the name of a franchise or video game in the title of a board game or card game be italicized to be grammatically correct? Dwhitney (talk) 12:30, June 10, 2023 (EDT)
Although you have a fair point, after reading the Grammarly article about italics, I have some contention regarding point 6, which discusses italicizing game titles. First of all, to follow Grammarly's guidelines not to italicize board game titles would go against Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which says that video games, board games, and trading card games should be italicized. From my understanding, this is because these games are fully self-contained pieces of media, rather than a smaller work which would appear in a larger piece of media (such as a Mario Partyminigame, an episode of a TV show, a song in an album, or an article in a magazine). The Grammarly article also claims that apps also qualify as long, published works that should be italicized, despite the fact that I have never seen a single written source — whether it be a casual conversation, a Super Mario Wiki article, a Wikipedia article, or an academic research paper — italicize the names of apps. Finally, although this point isn't as objective, including all tabletop games as media that should be italicized simply helps avoid confusion, making the process of italicizing titles as easy to follow as possible without being clearly incorrect. ThePowerPlayer 20:03, June 11, 2023 (EDT)
Do not make changes 3-9
I've come up with a change. I'm looking forward for {{Quote2}} and {{Distinguish2}} to be deleted to make way for optional linking for {{Quote}} and {{Distinguish}}, respectively, with {{Quote}} to receive optional italicization for the game, year, subject, etc.
For example, if you write {{quote|Koopalings! Your time has come!|[[Bowletta]]|''[[Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga]]''}}, you'll end up with:
SeanWheeler (talk) For those kinds of templates, links are to be expected, so it'll be quicker to have auto links. When the links are unnecessary, at least we have the manual version for those occasions.
There seems to be a bit of ambiguity among the opposition. I think I know what the proposer is trying to accomplish, so let me try to clarify:
Currently, the templates {{Quote}}, {{Distinguish}}, and {{Redirect-distinguish}} force automatic links (and automatic italicization in the case of {{Quote}} as well), meaning that if you type {{quote|Koopalings! Your time has come!|Bowletta|Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga}}, you'll get the following:
Since the templates force automatic links, users are forced to use {{Quote2}} and {{Distinguish2}} instead if they don't want the templates to use any links (note that there's also no Redirect-distinguish2 template); if they don't want to use links, they need to type {{quote2|Koopalings! Your time has come!|Bowletta|Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga}} to get the following:
“Koopalings! Your time has come!”
—Bowletta, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga
The proposer finds the existence of {{Quote2}} and {{Distinguish2}} highly unnecessary since they seem only to exist because {{Quote}} and {{Distinguish}} force automatic links whereas {{Quote2}} and {{Distinguish2}} make links optional; the proposer would rather have links and italicization on the main templates {{Quote}}, {{Distinguish}}, and {{Redirect-distinguish}} to be made optional, instead of having two versions of the same template; merge the alternate versions to the main versions so to speak, make the alternate versions the main versions even. That way, users can, for instance, simply use {{Quote}} and not have everything being linked or italicized automatically, and if they do want to use links, they can add them manually. This would also avoid linking manually in a Quote template to become a mess like this:
Personally, I do understand if users find having two separate quote templates just because one forces auto-links and one doesn't, clunky and unnecessary. rend(talk)(edits) 11:49, June 22, 2023 (EDT)
Add brainwashing to the list of Frequently misused terms
Include 8-0
I think a personal pet peeve of mine has come to me, and that's the frequent usage of brainwashing as an umbrella term for mind control. In many works of fiction, it's not too rareto see mind controlbe a driving plot point. However, it's something completely impossible in real life. Brainwashing, on the other hand, is something possible in real life. I don't want to get into the real-life nature of brainwashing, but to put it bluntly; people can get brainwashed not by silly, fictional mind control chips but by propaganda and/or abuse. Brainwashing is especially true for cults.
However, it's prevalent for the term "brainwashing" to apply to any attempt at science fiction mind control and possession. I can't list many examples; you've probably seen multiple instances where mind control is labeled as brainwashing, even in Super Mario games such as Super Paper Mario. One of the lines in the game state, "See, they've already sworn eternal allegiance to Count Bleck, 'K? And now you need to, so I'll just go ahead and pencil you in for a 10 o'clock brainwashing." I'll go more in-depth about this later, but it's an inaccurate comparison because brainwashing works through manipulation, and the victim has to agree to it to become brainwashed. Mind control involves taking control of someone else's mind, which they have no control over. What decided me do this is seeing the Tricky the Triceratops article mention he was "brainwashed" by Wizpig when the game manual states the bosses are in his control (unless some other material does state brainwashing). I mean, is it accurate to state that Shadow Queen is brainwashing Peach? Not really; she is just possessing her body. And for the record, we try significantly to avoid bad umbrella terms. The biggest are "beta" and "sub-species." With beta, we had an issue of people referring to an old version of a game as this, without any proof it's a beta build and just as a horrible term to describe any pre-release concept, including concept art. Sub-species were incorrectly used to describe variants of different enemies and were entirely speculative in many instances. The arguments that these terms work fine the way they are wholly ignore the fact that we are spreading misinformation here.
So if you couldn't tell for some reason, this proposal aims to put brainwashing in as one of those frequently misused terms in the Good writing section on the wiki. That way, users don't blanketly use the term to describe any term of mind control as brainwashing. Now I should clarify that this only refers to instances that don't state it's brainwashing. As brought up with the Super Paper Mario example, brainwashing is used as an umbrella term in that game as a synonym for mind control. If that is indeed the case, it's also valid to label it as brainwashing since the game is using that term. This is to avoid it when that term isn't used and perhaps any time brainwashing is brought up in these games as a term, it could be stated that it's actually mind control to not confuse readers, but that could be an awkward solution so putting in the misused terms is probably good enough.
Proposer: Wikiboy10 (talk) Deadline: July 6, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Tails777 (talk) As someone who has lazily used the term brainwashing as an umbrella term, I find this to be a useful suggestion. Per proposal.
MegaBowser64 (talk) let's stop being brainwashed into incorrectly using "brainwash".
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - As someone who has hypnotized herself in real life before for the heck of it and studied effects of mental-altering processes, I think we should indeed be more accurate to this subject.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) There are clear differences between these terms that should be addressed. Per proposal.
Camwoodstock (talk) - Yeahhh, unless the game itself expressly calls it brainwashing (see: SPM), we should probably not be throwing that word around willy-nilly, especially if more accurate alternatives exist.
Pirate Goomba (talk) - Well, if the word "brainwashing" is being used incorrectly, then the Wiki should make sure that people don't use it just to mean "mind control".
Should cases of hypnosis also be included? It's often used as a synonym for mind control in media as well, even though it's very different from brainwashing or mind control alike in real life. rend(talk)(edits) 13:00, June 22, 2023 (EDT)
Sadly, it's a bit too late to change that. Wikiboy10 (talk) 12:43, June 29, 2023 (EDT)
Change remaining instances of "MarioWiki" to "SMWiki"
Do not rename 2-0-13
Going off of the TPP that successfully decided that we rename to the Super Mario franchise, I would like to make a proposal to move the MarioWiki namespace to SMWiki. I had the idea when reading the About page, which says that SMWiki is a frequent name used for the wiki. Using "Super Mario Wiki" as the project namespace would be too long, and SMWiki takes up slightly fewer letters than MarioWiki.
One option is to only change the MarioWiki namespace prefix to "SMWiki," and another option changes other instances of MarioWiki to "SMWiki," such as the search bar on the side. Regardless of outcome the only thing that would remain unchanged by this proposals are talk pages and wiki archives.
Hewer (talk) This is the first time I've ever seen "SMWiki" mentioned and it's not as clear as MarioWiki in my opinion. Besides, I don't really see the point of this change - the wiki's name has always been Super Mario Wiki while the namespace is called MarioWiki, and it's never caused any issues. The renaming of the article in the mainspace isn't very relevant to this in my opinion.
Somethingone (talk) I agree with Hewer here; "MarioWiki" has been a fine enough namespace as is, and the reason why I find it better than the proposed "SMWiki" alternate is that the proposed name is an abbreviation, which is not as clear as the full words (We used to have redirects to the MarioWiki namespace that we're "MW:[TEXT]" but then they all were removed for no reason, so I don't think an abbreviated namespace would last long).
Swallow (talk) Per all, also the Twitter handle only abbreviates it because of character limitations so that's not a very good example.
Ahemtoday (talk) I have never heard anyone call this the "SMWiki".
Arend (talk) Very unnecessary to rename the project namespace from MarioWiki to SMWiki. Plus, MarioWiki as a namespace matches with the wiki's URL: https://www.mariowiki.com/
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, but especially Arend. Unless you want to move the URL of the site itself to SMWiki.com, this feels like a case of almost hilariously overcompensating for just one option when a much more consistently used name exists. (Besides, Twitter has been on a very steady but very certain decline and has evidently started rolling out a change that forces a user to sign up or log in to even read posts on it as of last night--the idea that we should start bending the wiki itself to be more in-line with the Twitter account now is... a very hard sell.)
TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all, I do not think this would be a necessary change.
Pseudo (talk) Per all. I would also like to mention that "SMWiki" also refers to the (now defunct) SMW Central romhacking wiki which used to be located at http://smwiki.net. While this site has been admittedly defunct for six years at this point changing the wiki's official abbreviation could do little but cause additional confusion.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) Unnecessary, plus "SMWiki" is too ambiguous of an abbreviation; out of context, it could easily refer to e.g. the Sailor Moon Wiki, or the Super Mario World ROM hacking wiki that Pseudo describes above. "MarioWiki" immediately gets the point across.
Comments
@Hewer: I just remembered the the Twitter account uses SMWikiOfficial The preceding unsigned comment was added by CoolNintendo (talk).
As the guy who created it, I am absolutely floored the clunky @ I thought up in 5 seconds because "@Mariowiki" was squatted is now being used as justification to change the name of the entire wiki lmao --Glowsquid (talk) 20:13, June 30, 2023 (EDT)
The people opposing raise some good points. However, perhaps it was just my fixation on the "Super Mario" brand because I like to think of it as "Suepr Mario is the brand while Mario is the character". And SMWiki, although abbreviated, is more consistent with the main name of the wiki (assuming that's why "MW:[TEXT] was changed?). But yeah not seeing "Mario" in "SMWiki" abbreviation is kind of annoying too. No easy solution to this. CoolNintendo (talk) 11:00, June 30, 2023 (EDT)
The brand can be and still is called Mario for short, which I think is a much better shorthand than the vague and clunky "SM", which I've never seen used outside this context. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:14, July 1, 2023 (EDT)
Make infoboxes and navboxes round
Keep current designs 2-10
Another proposal I'd like to make is simple and it would make the infoboxes and navbox borders round. now i don't know how to make things round because i'm not that big of an expert but the reason I making this proposal is because the sidebar and page display section have round border and i have this thing where i like it when thing look consistent. Also, the Mushroom in the logo is round.
SeanWheeler (talk) I use round infoboxes for my Wikias. I don't understand what you're talking about "stacking" infoboxes. We don't put multiple infoboxes together, do we? Even when a page has two infoboxes like the Smash characters, the Smash infobox is separated from the main infobox. Main infobox goes at the top. Smash infobox goes in the Super Smash Bros section.
Oppose
Spectrogram (talk) I really, really dislike the round infobox design.
Ahemtoday (talk) Round navboxes would look horrible. They're meant to stack on top of each other, which would look much worse if the side of their collective shape had a bunch of divots.
Hewer (talk) Per all, I prefer the pointed design and I don't really see the value in making it "consistent" with other boxes that serve completely different purposes and have different designs (much less the logo which isn't a box at all).
MegaBowser64 (talk) Don't even think about it. Crappy round stuff don't belong on here or else I'll go kuzo.
Pseudo (talk) Per all, too much of this in modern website design to a very unnecessary degree.
ExoRosalina (talk) Well yeah, but I think the infobox will messed up the design.
Comments
Rounded borders would be done by adding "border-radius: #px;" in html coding, replacing the hashtag with a number depending on how rounded you want the corners (bigger number = rounder corners). Though, I'm curious, what do you mean when you say the "page display" is rounded? S o m e t h i n g o n e ! 12:40, July 1, 2023 (EDT)
I assume they mean the rectangle in which page content is displayed (as opposed to the sidebar), but I'd say "consistency" is a bit of moot point in this case (I'm writing this comment in a non-rounded edit box). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:23, July 1, 2023 (EDT)
Although its embarrassing that both my proposals are being massively opposed, I don't mind others input so then we at least have a record of if ever someone later has a similar idea (or same one) we can say like "someone tried this and people did not like it". i just hope im not less welcome in this community due to my proposals The preceding unsigned comment was added by CoolNintendo (talk).
Nobody said you're unwelcome in this community due to your proposals! Proposals are simply meant to address ways in which the wiki runs and determines things, and as long as you're not insulting others then you're fine. You're being considerate and understanding the opposition calmly, so you're fine. S o m e t h i n g o n e ! 14:31, July 1, 2023 (EDT)
@SeanWheeler I'm talking about stacking NAVboxes, thank you very much. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:41, July 2, 2023 (EDT)
On ancient unsourced statements
passed 11-0
This month's Shroom of Spotlight contains yet another unsourced statement that cannot be proven true or false. Such statements are very common on this wiki thanks to Nintendo's horrible habbit of removing everything that stops making money. Ancient unsourced statements sit in a permanent limbo: we cannot remove them and yet we also don't want them on the page. The next proposition will NOT apply for names in other languages or dead links. It will also not apply for relatively recent unsourced statements, they'll also be dealt with just as usual.
If despite all the efforts no source was found. If we know it is impossible or extremely improbable a source to a statement will ever be found, then any editor can just copy the unsourced statement, add a new message to the talk page with a template {{no source|Quote of the deleted statement in full|July 8, 2023}}, and then delete that ancient unsourced statement for which we cannot find a source. This way if a source does surface, we can not only easily reinstate it, but we can also easily find these removed statements (a template adds a category to the talk page).
Example of a talk page message:
{{no source|Nintendo said Luigi has a prosthetic leg.|July 8, 2023}}
Couldn't find any evidence Nintendo has ever said this. --Luigi Factchecker 13:23, July 8, 2023 (EDT)
Proposer: Axis (talk) Deadline: July 15, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Hewer (talk) Per proposal, the template idea is a great way to have the best of both worlds by getting rid of likely false information on articles while also still keeping it easy to access in case anything does come up.
RandomizedKirbyTree47 (talk) As Hewer says this is the best of both removing it and keeping it in case a source is found later.
Camwoodstock (talk) Having some proper protocol and place to put these weird edge cases definitely feels preferable to either nixing them entirely or potentially shoving them somewhere they don't belong, and honestly, we're a little shocked this wasn't already a thing considering how vast the Mario series is and how many of these weird little improperly-cited tidbits inevitably exist. Better late than never!
LadySophie17 (talk) I would prefer if the text was always placed below the template rather than inside it, but overall I agree.
MegaBowser64 (talk) There's tons of random blurb and stuff Nintendo has long gotten rid of, with no way to access it again. See the argument about Wario's Warehouse, where a whole website was doubted completely to exist. It's tough, because much (if not most) unsourced statements about old Nintendo stuff are actually true, but on a website that relies completely on stuff that still exists, I guess we gotta do what we gotta do.
Tails777 (talk) Per MegaBowser64. Wario's Warehouse got lucky with saving/proving its existence. Not every bit of info will get that lucky so it's good to have a way to remove it until proven, but still have it easily accessible in case proof does pop up.
I do approve of the idea, I'm just not sure I understand the execution and how exactly the information will be displayed on the talk page using the template idea. If I understand how templates work, would the removed text be displayed *within* the template box? And if so, wouldn't it be better to simply add a generic {{no source|date}} template and then have the text be displayed below it (and above the comment from the editor)? Particularly because I imagine we would need to keep the text unchanged when moving to the talk page and it could be rather lengthy. — Lady Sophie(T|C) 20:14, July 8, 2023 (EDT)
If the text is too large, they don't have to add it as a part of a template, they can also just paste it below it. Spectrogram (talk) 05:05, July 9, 2023 (EDT)
Question: what would we do with pages about ancient, unsourced subjects? A few months ago, Wario's Warehouse had nearly fallen victim to deletion (or moved to BJAODN) because the sources for its existence (the articles) were deleted by Nintendo of Europe, only saved because someone else did some deep digging and found another source that proved its existence. This wasn't just a mere unsourced statement on an article, it was an entire unsourced article that was chock-full of unsourced statements. If we encounter a page based on an unsourced subject next time, what do we do then? Delete the entire thing and archive it in its entirety on the talk page? Not only could that possibly be rather lengthy as LadySophie pointed out about archiving the statements (possibly even lengthier since it's an entire article and not a mere statement), but the talk page could possibly be difficult to find, or perhaps completely forgotten about, with its main article deleted and unlinked from all pages. rend(talk)(edits) 05:05, July 9, 2023 (EDT)
Such cases are way out of the scope of this proposal, and honestly it's better to deal with articles like Wario's Warehouse on a case by case basis (not without a proposal, of course). Spectrogram (talk) 05:09, July 9, 2023 (EDT)
Determine coverage status of Tetris (NES) and F-1 Race (Game Boy)
No articles 0-0-10
This is primarily based on our current coverage of Alleyway, Baseball, and Pinball, which have decidedly low actual Mario-centric content but are given a (relatively) large amount of coverage regardless. In both the (official) NES version of Tetris and the Game Boy version of F-1 Race (the origin of which has a Super Mario sequel), a troupe of Nintendo characters - mostly Super Mario ones - appear on congratulatory screens, being part of a gradually expanding band in the former and individually appearing waving among the grid girls between races (and then all in a row at the end) in the latter. They are made up of Mario, Luigi, Toad, Princess, Donkey Kong, and Bowser, intermixed with Link, Samus, and Pit. What I want to determine here is whether we follow the above examples and give these articles despite the small nature of the appearances, and if so what level of coverage is considered.
#Pseudo (talk) These most definitely seem to have the Mario characters in them, though only in a minor appearance. I'm in support.
Cameo (no articles; unchanged)
CoolNintendo (talk): Opposing because the reason why those few things got full coverage is because mario is physically playable in them to some capacity. these two are only passerby cameos and a perfect example of what would go onto a List of mario References article
Axis (talk) Alleyway: you play as Mario for the whole game, Baseball: US manual description: Has a strong cleanup and ace, MARIO. One offensive team!, and Pinball: you also play as Mario, at least on Screen C, but it's very Mario-themed, so it gave it a boost. These two games on the other hand, only have Mario characters appearing among other non-Mario characters at the end screen, they serve no gameplay purpose and can be easily cut out, I don't see how this is any different than Punch-Out!! for NES.
Camwoodstock (talk) If we had still existed in the world where Qix on Game Boy had its article, we'd be inclined to agree. Unfortunately, that was merged awhile ago, and much for the same reasons that splitting this article is being opposed. Unfortunately, it'd take an overt change to how we handle first-party cameos for a split like this to make any sense; that is a debate for another day, though, and if you really must do it now... Do it up on the List of references in Nintendo video games article, not an already in-progress proposal. ;P
Pseudo (talk) Upon seeing these other examples given that contain cameos on par with this, I'm inclined to think these don't need their own articles. They should definitely be added to the List of references page though, per Camwoodstock.
TheUndescribableGhost (talk) While the appearances are indeed pretty obvious, there are just there for a simple gag and doesn't really impact the games very well in terms of gameplay or plot.
Comments
Decide how to name level articles for Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis and Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Minis March Again!
In Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis, the level name is displayed on the floor selection screen, in the format "Room X-Y" where X is the floor number and Y is the room number; this format is also displayed on the Nintendo DS system's top screen during a level. However, as the level fades in, the level name is displayed in a different format, "Floor X Room Y", alongside the message "Ready To Go!". Thus, two different in-game names are being used for the same level, for each standard level in the game. Notably, this usage of two different names happens in an identical manner in Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Minis March Again!.
Deciding which of these formats to use for naming levels is a difficult case, since they would both take the highest possible priority under naming guidelines, and it doesn't seem like either game gives one of the formats more notability than the other. LinkTheLefty's argument in adding the move templates was that the format "Floor X Room Y" is the full name of the subject. However, the wiki's naming guidelines state that "the name of an article should correspond to the most commonly used English name of the subject". The format "Room X-Y" is used twice per level in March of the Minis and three times per level in Minis March Again!: on the level selection screen and during a level in both games, as well as on the level results screen in Minis March Again! only. This is as opposed to the format "Floor X Room Y", which is only used once per level as it fades into view. That difference leads me to treat naming these articles like Professor E. Gadd, where we no longer name the article Professor Elvin Gadd because his full name is much less commonly used than the shortened version. Additionally, the format "X-Y" maintains consistency with not only the vast majority of side-scrolling Super Mario levels, but other levels in the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series as well, such as Area 1-1. Therefore, I would support keeping the naming format for these levels as is, although I can see a convincing argument being made for changing the names instead.
I've given this proposal four options, since this may not be an all-or-nothing decision, especially if new evidence arises that I hadn't considered. Because both formats are official level names, whichever format is not used in the article titles will become a redirect to each level. I'd also like to note that this proposal only covers the levels in March of the Minis and the levels in Minis March Again! which currently use the format "Room X-Y" in their article names. The boss levels in each game have different unique names that may or may not warrant their own proposal, and the Shy Guy Smash! levels in March of the Minis do not have unique names at all, so the boss and minigame levels do not apply to this proposal.
Use "Floor X Room Y" for both March of the Minis and Minis March Again!
Use "Room X-Y" for March of the Minis, and "Floor X Room Y" for Minis March Again!
Use "Floor X Room Y" for March of the Minis, and "Room X-Y" for Minis March Again!
Comments
When it comes to boss levels in Minis March Again, it's a bit more complicated (youtube.com). They are simply labelled "DONKEY KONG" on the level selection screen, "FLOOR X DONKEY KONG GAME" as the level fades in, and "FLOOR X DONKEY KONG" on the level results screen, with none of these being given any form of priority in-game; in this same respect, the analogues for regular levels are "ROOM X-Y", "FLOOR X ROOM Y", and "ROOM X-Y" again. Also, unlike with regular levels, boss levels don't have their name displayed on the top screen during gameplay. -- KOOPACONCARNE 14:46, July 24, 2023 (EDT)
Apologies for not bringing that up; I was aware of this, but I thought it to be irrelevant to the specific topic of the proposal, which focuses on level names that are currently titled "Room X-Y". It's worth noting that March of the Minisalso uses different names (youtube.com) for its boss levels: they are labeled generically as "BOSS - DK" on the level selection screen, and uniquely as "BOSS GAME X" as the level fades in, but no level title is displayed on the results screen for any level in that game. I've modified the proposal to reflect this additional information. ThePowerPlayer 16:53, July 24, 2023 (EDT)
This is good info compiled in one place, and I honestly forgot that Minis March Again! used mostly the same level format anyway. My other issue is that each name set comes from different spots, and the longer titles of the regular levels would be more internally consistent with where the March of the Minis boss levels come from (which are right now, for all intents and purposes, invoking source priority exception against identical common-use - with the exception of the two "Hidden Boss" levels that are both covered within the "DK's Hideout" article). Any abbreviations tend to go to the level code section in the level infobox. I know this proposal isn't addressing the boss levels, but I'd prefer it taken care of all at once, especially since the second game's boss levels look like they currently take their titles from yet another game screen. It seems like it became somewhat random. (And about that other thing: Yeah I get it.)LinkTheLefty (talk) 19:04, July 24, 2023 (EDT)
My reasoning for why I didn't include the boss level articles is not only because it would force the proposal to include more voting options and make it unnecessarily complicated, but because the boss levels are a separate case, where the ideal title to use for each level is generally more clear. For the names of the first eight boss levels in March of the Minis (Boss Game 1 through Boss Game 8), I'm not sure how they invoke any source priority exception, because all of the names discussed above are exclusively found in the games, which is always the highest priority source. For what it's worth, the North American and European instruction manuals refer to all of the boss levels generically as "DK stages" on page 18 and "DK levels" on page 16, respectively. Those are the only sources that would share a tier of priority with the in-game names, meaning that for the levels currently titled "Boss Game X", the only unique names for those levels are in the "Boss Game X" format: I was corrected when I claimed otherwise. The regular levels in either game are a different case, because they have two formats that designate each level with unique numbers, which are "Room X-Y" and "Floor X Room Y". For the "Hidden Boss" levels in DK's Hideout, not only do they have clear in-game level names of B1 and B2, but they can both be covered at once on the DK's Hideout article anyway. The more interesting case is the level called "Final Boss" on the roof, which is indeed the name of the floor according to both instruction booklets. "Final Boss" is the only level on that floor, so the article covering both the floor and level should remain "Roof". Aside from that clear-cut evidence, naming the article "Final Boss" would be silly and/or confusing, because that term could apply to any final boss. Finally, for the boss levels in Minis March Again!, although those levels do have two unique names for each level ("FLOOR X DONKEY KONG GAME" as the level fades in and "FLOOR X DONKEY KONG" on the level results screen), the name currently used for those levels is "Floor X Donkey Kong". This is in fact consistent with the "Room X-Y" format for standard levels, which is also used on the level results screen: compare the Room 1-1 results screen with the Floor 1 Donkey Kong results screen (youtube.com). Once again, the only reason the March of the Minis boss level articles are named "Boss Game X" is because there is no other unique name for them whatsoever, and they certainly shouldn't all be named "BOSS - DK" with the floor name as an identifier when the "BOSS GAME X" text is present with the same source priority. If this is still an issue of contention, I'll happily make a second proposal one week from when this proposal was created, but as I mentioned, I want to keep this proposal's voting options as simple as possible. ThePowerPlayer 16:58, July 25, 2023 (EDT)
Extra emphasis should be placed on the word "unique" here, so yes, from my understanding, the bosses do edge away from the "most commonly used" labels, hence, an exception is made. I feel like I should make a little table here to show what I mean by picking and choosing from different name sets. All I'm pointing out is that the full titles would be more consistent with where we take the names for the boss levels in March of the Minis (Minis March Again! can come later). But if you'd rather focus on the regular levels: honestly, I've been wondering a bit recently if "most common in-game name" would necessarily be the optimal approach in every single case, as seen in my hesitation here. If we were to go beyond this in the strictest sense, we might have to re-evaluate things like the Super Mario Bros. 3 and Mario & Wario worlds, and consider giving them the series-standard world-number-and-identifiers. After all, that would align with the uniform approach of the shorter names used in this very proposal, right? That these are up to proposals means we have room to bend the rules a bit, you understand. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:50, July 25, 2023 (EDT)
Doesn't the "most commonly used name" thing just refer to American English over British English? That's definitely the impression I get from how the policy is worded. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:29, July 25, 2023 (EDT)
I've thought about this some more, and I've also made a reference table to use for any further discussion. I will concede that the "most commonly used name" rule on MarioWiki:Naming most likely was not meant to apply to discrepancies within the North American version of a single game, and that the outcomes of many proposals inherently bend the rules on a case-by-case basis; however, I still stand by every other point I make in the proposal and comments above, including the point about how "Room X-Y" maintains consistency with other games. I do recognize that according to the reference table I made, for March of the Minis specifically, the current format that article titles use for normal and boss levels respectively are not consistent with each other; however, there are only two options that would make them consistent. The first is using the generic title "BOSS - DK" for all of the first eight boss levels, which is an absurd approach that would necessitate separate identifiers for all eight articles. The second is using "Floor X Room Y" for the regular levels and "Boss Game X" for the boss levels, and I do see this as a valid option. However, regardless of whether or not the "most commonly used name" rule applies here, I can't ignore the consistency with the names of levels in other games, even in the same series, that the "Room X-Y" format provides. I have some contention with your point about the Super Mario Bros. 3 and Mario & Wario worlds, because the article names we currently use are clearly unique names that have some thought put into them, which is why we default to using them. Case in point: the articles for Mushroom Mayhem and Mini Mayhem are not named "Floor 1", despite that name being more prominently featured on the level selection screen, and the unique names being subtitles on each floor. In contrast, "Floor X Room Y" feels less unique and more like a needlessly complex way to describe the same floor-and-room number formatting as "Room X-Y", just like "Floor X Donkey Kong Game" in Minis March Again! is more needlessly complex than "Floor X Donkey Kong". On that topic, for Minis March Again!, the normal and boss level article titles are consistent with each other, and I see no good reason to change either of them. I'm probably going to make a separate proposal for the boss level articles anyway, just to establish a set guideline, but let me know your current thoughts on this. ThePowerPlayer 23:07, July 29, 2023 (EDT)
Reflects the elements from DKwiki
Do not make changes 1-14
In the past, DKwiki existed separately. It was eventually merged because there were no DK games in recently and there were more appearances in the Mario spinoff. How about including the first appearance from the Mario series? If there is no appearance in Mario spinoff, the status quo is maintained.
Swallow (talk) This wiki basically treats Super Mario and Donkey Kong as if they were the same franchise. This would just lead to others trying to find similar exceptions like this which would get way too messy.
Tails777 (talk) Per Swallow. This just opens the door for the same to apply to Wario and Yoshi as well, as they are also in the same sub-franchise boat as Donkey Kong is.
Ahemtoday (talk) I... don't see the reason to do this.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Swallow. This only muddies the waters of what's a Mario game vs. a Donkey Kong game, and is honestly a lot less helpful than it is harmful. There's more elegant ways to convey these sorts of things anyhow.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - What is the point? Prose is better for this and less ambiguous anyway.
Hewer (talk) Donkey Kong games are considered by the wiki to be part of the Super Mario franchise, and the lines can be blurry in some cases (most notably the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games that we consider to be in both franchises, but also other similar cases like the original Donkey Kong game, which is obviously in the Donkey Kong franchise but is also considered the first Mario game as it was the first appearance of Mario and he's the main character). But I also don't really see the benefit of changing this regardless, it's not like we consider either Mario or DK to be more important than the other. Also, I'm confused why the proposal lists crossover appearances featuring both Mario and DK under the DK-related appearances.
Arend (talk) Per all, specifically Swallow, Tails777, Camwoodstock and Hewer. Also, see comments.
ExoRosalina (talk) Per all, but it looks a same treat for the Super Mario and Donkey Kong franchise.
Comments
Mario vs. Donkey Kong is considered into Mario-related appearance since it contained more Mario contents than Donkey Kong Country. Windy (talk) 23:37, August 18, 2023 (EDT)
The wiki has considered the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games as both. Sure, it contains very few Donkey Kong Country elements compared to the Super Mario elements it has, but the games have always been a homage to the classic arcade games of Donkey Kong; the very first entry of Mario vs. Donkey Kong is a spiritual sequel to the Donkey Kong Game Boy game of 1994, with its gameplay similar to that game instead of how a Super Mario Bros. game works. Its sequels also reintroduce Pauline, who only appeared in the Donkey Kong arcade game, the 1994 Game Boy game, and the NES game Pinball; Pauline hadn't really made an actual appearance in a Super Mario title until Super Mario Odyssey ten years later. The Mario vs. Donkey Kong games also make sure to always homage the classic 1981 arcade game in some fashion. So in essence, I think it's wrong to consider Mario vs. Donkey Kong a Mario spinoff only, when in reality it's a spinoff of both Mario and Donkey Kong. It's a crossover, in essence. As such, if this proposal passes, it'd probably make more sense if Mario vs. Donkey Kong, and by extension the classic Donkey Kong arcade games, either should be counted as Donkey Kong games, or are listed separate from both the Super Mario games and the Donkey Kong games... and that's straight-up confusing and makes me doubt that the separation between the two series really is a good idea, even if only for the infoboxes. rend(talk)(edits) 01:44, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
Also, the original McsDK takes more from Donkey Kong on the Game Boy, which is a Donkey Kong game through and through. In that respect, it makes more sense to consider it primarily a DK game, but as Arend pointed out, that's not necessarily true. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:57, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
@Hewer: Regarding why crossovers featuring both Mario and DK would be regarded as DK-related, I presume is because the specific appearances of those DK characters would be more related to the DK games than the Mario games (e.g. Super Smash Bros. lists DK, Diddy and K. Rool as Donkey Kong series character rather than Super Mario series characters; the DK, DK Jr and Diddy Mystery Costumes in Super Mario Maker are listed separately from the other Mario-related Mystery Costumes instead of being blended in, as if they're representing their own series instead; and the WarioWare microgames that feature Donkey Kong are based on Donkey Kong games rather than Mario games). But like with the Mario vs. DK thing I discussed, though, this crossover segregation could be really confusing and complicated for people and makes me think that it's not a good idea to list these things separately in the infoboxes. rend(talk)(edits) 06:35, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
My confusion is why those crossovers are all exclusively listed under Donkey Kong despite all featuring both Mario and DK representation. I guess they're covered by "Mario-related spinoff and crossover" as well, but that's confusingly vague. And I very much disagree with the proposer's stance that the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games aren't part of both franchises - the Donkey Kong franchise isn't just Donkey Kong Country and its derivatives, it also includes the original arcade trilogy and the derivatives of those games, including Mario vs. Donkey Kong. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:23, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
Regarding the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games, that's exactly what I was saying. rend(talk)(edits) 10:58, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
Especially when one considers the original MvsDK is based directly on DK94 more than any Super Mario-branded game. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:54, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
